Skip to main content

Full text of "Luke the historian in the light of research"

See other formats





A.  T.  ROBERTSON,  M.A.,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  LITT.D. 


Having  traced  the  course  of  all  things 
accurately  from  the  first." 


T.  &  T.  CLARK 


Copyright,  1920,  by  Charles  Scribner's  Sons 
for  the  United  States  of  America 

Printed  by  the  Scribner  Press 
New  York,  U.  S.  A, 



DR.   AND   MRS.   J.   B.   MARVIN 





The  work  of  the  last  fifteen  years  has  created  new  interest 
in  the  writings  of  Luke.  The  relation  of  Luke's  Gospel  to 
Mark's  Gospel  and  the  Logia  of  Jesus  has  sharply  defined  his 
own  critical  methods  and  processes.  The  researches  of  Har- 
nack,  Hobart,  and  Ramsay  have  restored  the  credit  of  Luke 
with  many  critics  who  had  been  carried  away  by  the  criticism 
of  Baur,  and  who  looked  askance  upon  the  value  of  Luke  as 
the  historian  of  early  Christianity.  It  has  been  like  mining— 
digging  now  here,  now  there.  The  items  in  Luke's  books  that 
were  attacked  have  been  taken  up  one  by  one.  The  work  has 
been  slow  and  piecemeal,  of  necessity.  But  it  is  now  possible 
to  gather  together  into  a  fairly  complete  picture  the  results. 
It  is  a  positively  amazing  vindication  of  Luke.  The  force  of 
the  argument  is  cumulative  and  tremendous.  One  needs  to 
have  the  patience  to  work  through  the  details  with  candor  and 
a  willingness  to  see  all  the  facts  with  no  prejudice  against  Luke 
or  against  the  supernatural  origin  of  Christianity.  It  is  not 
claimed  that  every  difficulty  in  Luke's  books  has  been  solved, 
but  so  many  have  been  triumphantly  removed  that  Luke  is 
entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  in  the  rest  or  at  any  rate  to 
patience  on  our  part  till  further  research  can  make  a  report. 
Luke  should  at  least  be  treated  as  fairly  as  Thucydides  or 
Polybius  when  he  makes  a  statement  that  as  yet  has  no  other 
support  or  seems  in  conflict  with  other  writers.  Modern 
scholars  are  no  longer  on  the  defensive  about  Luke.  His 
books  can  be  used  with  confidence.  The  work  of  research  has 
thrown  light  in  every  direction  and  the  story  is  fascinating  to 
every  lover  of  truth. 

These  lectures,  delivered  to  the  Northfield  Christian  Workers' 
Conference,  August  2-16,  1919,  at  the  invitation  of  Mr.  W. 


vili  PREFACE 

R.  Moody,  have  been  greatly  enlarged  for  publication.  But 
the  toil  has  been  brightened  by  the  memory  of  the  crowds  in 
Sage  Chapel  who  first  heard  them. 

"The  long  series  of  discoveries  by  Sir  W.  M.  Ramsay  and 
his  coadjutors  in  Asia  Minor  has  established  the  Acts  narra 
tive  in  a  position  from  which  later  research  is  unlikely  to  de 
throne  it."  (London  Times  Literary  Supplement,  March  13, 
1920.)  But  the  work  of  research  goes  on  with  vigor.  New 
books  continue  to  come  out  concerning  Luke's  writings,  like 
Carpenter's  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke  and  McLach- 
lan's  St.  Luke :  The  Man  and  His  Work.  Both  of  them  I  found 
useful  and  stimulating.  Vol.  I  of  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity, 
by  Foakes-Jackson  and,  Kirsopp  Lake,  came  too  late  to  use. 
It  is  an  ambitious  attempt  to  set  forth  the  historical  atmos 
phere  of  the  Acts,  and  assumes  the  thesis  that  Jesus  preached 
only  repentance  with  no  world  programme  such  as  later  Chris 
tianity  provided.  Lieutenant  MacKinlay  also  has  in  press  a 
new  book  on  Luke. 

I  have  to  thank  Rev.  J.  McKee  Adams,  Louisville,  Kentucky, 
who  put  the  manuscript  in  typewritten  form  and  for  other 
tokens  of  interest  in  the  work.  The  splendid  Indices  were  pre 
pared  by  Rev.  J.  Allan  Easley,  Jr.,  Manning,  South  Carolina, 
whose  careful  work  will  make  the  volume  more  useful  to  stu 
dents.  A  few  of  the  chapters  have  appeared  as  articles  in  jour 
nals,  whose  publishers  have  graciously  agreed  to  their  use  in 
this  volume. 


August,  1920. 






II.    A  SKETCH  OF  LUKE'S  CAREER    ........  16 





VII.    THE  USE  OF  MEDICAL  TERMS  BY  LUKE     ....  90 





JESUS 142 

XII.    AN  HISTORIAN'S  IDEA  OF  THE  DEITY  OF  JESUS   .     .  153 



ACTS 179 



XVII.    THE  SPEECHES  IN  THE  ACTS.     ...     .     .    •<.  *  .     .  217 

XVIII.    A  BROAD  OUTLOOK  ON  LIFE       .     .,-..-.     .     .     .  231 

INDEX  243 



"The  former  treatise  I  made,  O  Theophilus"  (Acts  1 : 1) 

1.  The  Importance  of  the  Lukan  Writings. — Modern  research 
has  revived  interest  in  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke  and  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.  In  part  this  fact  is  due  to  the  natural 
reaction  against  the  extreme  view  of  Baur,  who  bluntly  said 
that  the  statements  in  Acts  "can  only  be  looked  upon  as 
intentional  deviations  from  historic  truth  in  the  interest  of  the 
special  tendency  which  they  possess." l  It  is  true  that  Luke  in 
Acts  is  not  a  blind  Paulinist,  as  Moffatt2  shows.  Both  Peter 
and  Paul  are  heroes  with  Luke,  but  the  weaknesses  and  short 
comings  of  both  apostles  appear.  Undoubtedly  Luke  reveals 
his  sympathies  with  Paul,  but  he  is  not  hostile  to  Peter  and  is 
quite  capable3  of  doing  justice  to  both  Peter  and  Paul.  The 
work  of  Baur  has  not  discredited  Luke  in  the  final  result  as  a 
writer  who  sought  to  cover  up  the  friction  between  Peter  and 
Paul  and  between  Barnabas  and  Paul.  The  struggles  in  early 
Christianity  stand  out  with  sufficient  clearness  in  the  Acts,  and 
it  is  now  seen  to  be  quite  possible  that  Luke  has  drawn  the 
narrative  with  a  true  perspective.  Schweitzer4  argues  that  the 
account  in  Acts  is  more  intelligible  than  that  in  the  Pauline 
Epistles:  "When  the  Tubingen  school  set  up  the  axiom  that 
Acts  is  less  trustworthy  than  the  Epistles,  they  made  things 
easy  for  themselves" — easy,  one  may  add,  by  slurring  over 
plain  facts  in  the  Acts. 

1  Baur,  Paid,  vol.  I,  p.  108, 

2  Intr.  to  the  Literature  of  the  N.  T.,  p.  302. 

3  Ibid.,  p,  302.  4  Paul  and  His  Interpreters,  p.  126. 



But  Baur  compelled  diligent  study  of  the  Acts.  The  critics, 
like  the  Beroeans  after  Paul  preached,  went  to  "  examining  the 
scriptures  daily,  whether  these  things  were  so"  (Acts  17  : 11). 
As  a  result  of  a  half-century  of  such  research  Maurice  Jones1 
can  say:  "There  is  no  book  in  the  whole  of  the  New  Testament 
whose  position  in  the  critical  world  has  been  so  enhanced  by 
recent  research  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles."  It  cannot,  how 
ever,  be  claimed  that  modern  critics  are  at  one  either  in  cred 
iting  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  to  Luke  or  in  attaching  a  higher 
value  to  the  so-called  Lukan  writings.  The  long  prejudice 
against  these  books  has  not  entirely  disappeared.  Pfleiderer2 
can  still  claim  that  "the  Gospel  of  Luke  was  probably  written 
at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  by  an  unknown  heathen 
Christian,"  though  he  admits  that  Luke,  "the  pupil  of  Paul," 
wrote  the  memoirs  of  his  journey  with  Paul  (the  "we"  sections 
of  Acts).  Jiilicher3  considers  it  "a  romantic  ideal"  to  attribute 
these  books  to  Luke.  And  Weizsacker1  as  late  as  1902  says: 
"The  historical  value  of  the  narrative  in  Acts  shrinks  until  it 
reaches  a  vanishing-point."  But  these  are  modern  protests 
against  the  new  evidence  that  were  to  be  expected.  The  judg 
ment  of  Maurice  Jones  about  the  new  estimate  placed  upon 
the  Acts  and  upon  Luke's  Gospel  remains  true. 

Much  of  the  credit  for  this  outcome  is  due  to  Sir  W.  M. 
Ramsay,  who  was  himself  at  first  a  disciple  of  Baur.  It  was 
patient  research  that  proved  that  Baur  was  wrong  and  that 
enabled  Ramsay  to  reconstruct  the  world  of  Luke  and  Paul 
in  the  light  of  their  own  writings  and  the  archseological  dis 
coveries  made  by  Ramsay  and  others  in  Asia  Minor.  The 
results  of  this  revolution  in  Ramsay's  literary  outlook  appear 
in  his  various  volumes,  like  The  Historical  Geography  of  Asia 
Minor,  The  Church  in  tJie  Roman  Empire,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller 
and  Roman  Citizen,  Luke  the  Physician,  Pauline  and  Other 
Studies,  The  Cities  of  St.  Paul,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem? 
The  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery  on  the  Trustworthiness  of  the 
New  Testament. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  these  volumes  mark  an  epoch 

1  The  New  Testament  in  the  Twentieth  Century,  p.  227. 

2  Christian  Origins,  p.  238. 

3  Introduction  to  the  N.  T.,  pp.  447  f. 

4  Apostolic  Age,  pp.  106  f .    With  this  Von  Soden  agrees,  History  of  Early 
Christian  Lit.,  p.  243. 


in  the  study  of  the  writings  of  Luke  and  Paul.  Ramsay  is 
conscious  that  he  began  with  a  strong  current  of  adverse  criti 
cism  against  him.  He  boldly  asks1  the  critics:  "Shall  we 
hear  evidence  or  not?"  Ramsay2  sharply  says:  "Criticism 
for  a  time  examined  the  work  attributed  to  Luke  like  a  corpse, 
and  the  laborious  autopsy  was  fruitless.  Nothing  in  the  whole 
history  of  literary  criticism  has  been  so  waste  and  dreary  as 
great  part  of  the  modern  critical  study  of  Luke."  This  charge 
is  true,  but  Ramsay3  is  able  to  say:  "It  has  for  some  time  been 
evident  to  all  New  Testament  scholars  who  were  not  hidebound 
in  old  prejudice  that  there  must  be  a  new  departure  in  Lukan 
criticism.  The  method  of  dissection  had  failed."  Ramsay 
took  the  new  path  that  has  led  out  of  the  wilderness. 

Others  were  at  work  along  different  lines.  Hawkins4  had 
done  real  service  on  the  synoptic  problem  and  had  brought 
into  sharp  relief  the  place  of  Luke's  Gospel  in  relation  to  Mark 
and  Matthew.  Hobart5  had  shown  that  the  author  of  both 
Gospel  and  Acts  employed  medical  terms  to  a  surprising  de 
gree.  The  evidence  pointed  to  Luke  and  reinforced  the  work 
of  Ramsay. 

In  time  Adolph  Harnack  was  led  to  notice  the  work  of  these 
men.  He  was  convinced  that  they  were  right  and  he  reversed 
his  position  and  took  up  the  cudgels  for  the  Lukan  authorship 
of  both  Gospel  and  Acts.  He  says:6  "All  the  mistakes  which 
have  been  made  in  New  Testament  criticism  have  been  focussed 
into  the  criticism  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles."  That  is  a  dar 
ing  statement  from  the  new  convert  who  ridicules  "the  intol 
erable  pedantry"  of  the  critics  who  cannot  see  the  facts  for 
their  theories.  Harnack  is  aware  of  the  supercilious  scorn  of 
many  who  have  refused  to  notice  the  arguments  in  favor  of 
Luke.  He  sees  also  the  great  importance7  of  Luke's  writings: 
"The  genuine  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  the  writings  of  St.  Luke, 
and  the  history  of  Eusebius  are  the  pillars  of  primitive  Chris 
tian  history.  This  fact  has  not  yet  been  sufficiently  recognized 
in  the  case  of  the  Lukan  writings;  partly  because  critics  are 
convinced  that  these  writings  are  not  to  be  assigned  to  St. 

1  Pauline  and  Other  Studies,  chap.  I. 

2  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  3. 

3  Ibid.  4  Horce  Synopticce. 

5  The  Medical  Language  of  St.  Luke, 

6  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  122.  7  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  1. 


Luke.  And  yet,  even  if  they  were  right  in  their  suppositions, 
the  importance  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  at  least  still  remains 
fundamental.  However,  I  hope  to  have  shown  in  the  follow 
ing  pages  that  critics  have  gone  astray  in  this  question,  and 
that  the  traditional  view  holds  good.  The  Lukan  writings 
thus  recover  their  own  excelling  value  as  historical  authorities." 
Harnack,  as  we  shall  see,  does  not  rank  Luke  as  high  as  Ram 
say  does,  but  he  has  definitely  championed  the  Lukan  author 
ship  of  both  the  Gospel  and  Acts.  Renan  felt  the  charm  of 
Luke's  Gospel  as  a  literary  production  when  he  pronounced  it 
"  the  most  beautiful  book  ever  written." 

The  historical  worth  of  the  Gospel  and  Acts  comes  up  for 
formal  discussion  in  succeeding  chapters.  Sanday  thinks  that 
Ramsay's  "treatment  of  St.  Luke  as  a  historian  seems  too  opti 
mistic"  when  he  ranks  him  as  the  foremost  ancient  historian, 
even  above  Thucydides.  But,  whatever  view  one  holds  of  the 
Lukan  writings,  no  serious  student  of  the  New  Testament  can 
neglect  them.  The  author  writes  two  books  that  interpret  the 
origins  of  Christianity.  How  far  has  he  been  successful  in  this 
effort  ?  He  claims  that  he  took  pains  to  do  it  with  care.  Crit 
icism  has  challenged  his  claims.  One  cannot  complain  of 
criticism  per  se.  Carpenter1  well  says:  "Let  us  by  all  means 
have  historical  criticism,  but  let  it  be  genuinely  historical."  It 
is  not  best  to  prejudge  the  case  before  we  examine  the  evidence, 
and  Chase2  sums  the  matter  up  thus:  "But  it  may  be  safely 
said  that  the  certain  results  of  archaeological  research  strongly 
confirm  the  accuracy  and  truthfulness  of  the  author  of  the 
Acts."  Let  the  facts  speak  for  themselves. 

2.  The  Same  Author  for  Both  Gospel  and  Acts. — The  author  of 
the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  makes  the  distinct  claim  of  identity 
in  Acts  1:1:"  The  former  treatise  I  made,  O  Theophilus,  con 
cerning  all  that  Jesus  began  both  to  do  and  teach."  Theophi 
lus  is  clearly  a  proper  name,  "not  an  imaginary  nom  de  guerre 
for  the  typical  catechumen,  nor  a  conventional  title  for  the 
average  Christian  reader."3  He  was  a  Christian  who  had 
already  been  catechized4  (Luke  1 : 4)  and  who  wished  further 
instruction.  It  is  probable  that  Theophilus  was  a  man  of  rank 

1  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  p.  ix. 

2  The  Credibility  of  the  Book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  p.  8. 

3  Moffatt,  Introduction,  p.  262. 

4 MI_     of.  Apollos  in  Acts  18 :  25. 


because  of  the  epithet  "most  excellent"1  (Luke  1:3),  which  is 
"technical  and  distinctive"2  for  the  equestrian  rank  (cf.  Acts 
24  :  3;  26  :  25).  Ramsay  doubts  if  a  Roman  officer  in  the  first 
century  would  be  willing  to  bear  the  name  Theophilus,  and 
suggests  that  it  was  his  baptismal  name  which  Luke  employs 
because  "it  was  dangerous  for  a  Roman  of  rank  to  be  recog 
nized  as  a  Christian."  Be  that  as  it  may,  identity  of  author 
ship  is  claimed  by  the  address  to  Theophilus.  It  is  hardly 
likely  that  there  were  two  authors  who  used  his  name  to  prove 
identity.  It  has  been  suggested  that  Luke  was  a  freedman 
brought  up  in  the  home  of  Theophilus,  who  was  his  patron, 
and  who  defrayed  the  expense  of  the  publication  of  both  of 
Luke's  books.3  Hayes4  conjectures  that  Theophilus,  who  lived 
in  Antioch,  educated  Luke  at  the  university,  and  that  he  was 
also  a  schoolmate  of  Barnabas  and  Saul  there. 

We  are  not  here  arguing  that  the  Acts  shows  unity  of  author 
ship.  That  point  must  be  assumed  for  the  present.  The 
proof  will  be  given  later  that  the  writer  of  the  "we"  sections 
is  the  author  of  the  whole  of  Acts,  though  he  used  a  variety  of 
sources,  as  he  did  in  the  writing  of  the  Gospel  (Luke  1 : 1-4). 
The  point  that  is  now  urged  is  that  whoever  wrote  one  book 
wrote  the  other.  The  same  man  wrote  both  Gospel  and  Acts. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  argue  that  the  author  contemplated  a 
third  volume  because  of  his  use  of  "first" 5  in  Acts  1:1.  That 
nicety  in  the  use  of  language  was  not  common  in  the  Koine6 
where  the  dual  form  had  nearly  vanished.  To-day  we  speak 
of  first  wife  when  a  man  had  only  two,  and  we  talk  of  the 
first  story  of  a  two-story  house.  This  item  plays  no  real  part 
in  the  argument  one  way  or  the  other. 

1  xp&rura.  2  Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  388. 

3  One  thinks  of  Maecenas  and  Horace.     "This  was  the  recognized  prac 
tice  of  the  time."     Moffatt,  Introduction,  p.  313. 

4  The  Synoptic  Gospels  and  the  Book  of  Acts,  p.  197. 

5  rbv  xpw-rov  X6yov.    Cf .  Robertson,  Grammar  of  the  Greek  New  Testa 
ment  in  the  Light  of  Historical  Research,  p.  280.    Luke  never  employs 
•jcp6Tepo<;.     The  papyri  nearly  always  use  xp6>To<;. 

8  The  Koine  is  the  name  given  to  the  Greek  current  throughout  the 
Greco-Roman  world  after  the  conquests  of  Alexander  the  Great.  It  was 
the  language  common  to  all  classes  and  nations  and  it  was  the  means  of 
communication  practically  everywhere.  It  was  employed  in  the  vernacu 
lar,  as  is  seen  in  the  papyri  of  Egypt,  and  literary  men  like  Polybius  and 
Plutarch  wrote  in  it  also.  The  New  Testament  writers  used  the  Koine 
as  a  matter  of  course. 


In  spite  of  the  variety  of  sources  employed  in  both  the  Gos 
pel  and  the  Acts,  there  is  the  same  general  vocabulary  and 
style  in  both  books.  This  argument  has  been  well  developed 
by  Friedrich.1  It  ought  not  to  be  necessary  to  argue  this 
point,  since  "the  linguistic  and  other  peculiarities  which  dis 
tinguish  the  Gospel  are  equally  prominent  in  the  Acts." 2  The 
words  peculiar  to  Luke  in  both  Gospel  and  Acts  are  more 
numerous  than  those  peculiar  to  any  other  New  Testament 
writer,  except  Paul  (counting  the  Pastoral  Epistles).3  The 
argument  of  Hobart  in  his  Medical  Language  of  St.  Luke  applies 
to  both  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts,  as  we  shall  see,  and  is  proof 
of  identity  of  authorship.  There  is  little  opposition  among 
critics  to  the  Lukan  authorship  of  the  Gospel.  "  If  the  Gospel 
were  the  only  writing  ascribed  to  his  authorship,  we  should 
probably  raise  no  objection  against  this  record  of  ancient  tra 
dition;  for  we  have  no  sufficient  reason  for  asserting  that  a  dis 
ciple  of  Paul  could  not  have  composed  this  work." 4  It  is  with 
the  Acts  that  critics  have  trouble.  De  Wette  doubted  the 
Lukan  authorship  of  the  Gospel,  and  Scholten  argued  that  the 
same  man  could  not  have  written  both  Gospel  and  Acts. 
Harnack5  grows  facetious  over  this  argument:  "Seeing  how  one 
critic  trustfully  rests  upon  the  authority  of  another,  we  may 
congratulate  ourselves  that  some  accident  has  prevented 
Scholten's  hypothesis — that  the  third  gospel  and  the  Acts  have 
different  authors — from  finding  its  way  into  the  great  stream 
of  criticism  and  so  becoming  a  dogma  in  these  days."  The 
line  of  attack  has  not  been  to  show  that  Luke's  Gospel  and 
Acts  are  unlike,  but  that  the  Acts  was  not  written  by  a  com 
panion  of  Paul.  To  the  Acts,  then,  let  us  go.  Who  wrote  the 

3.  The  Author  of  Acts  a  Companion  of  Paul. — Here  is  where 
the  real  battle  has  raged.  Very  few  critics  have  the  hardihood 

1  Das  Lukas — Evangelium  und  die  Apostdgeschichte  Werlx,  dessdben  Ver- 
fasser  (1890). 

2  Supernatural  Religion,  vol.  Ill,  p.  32.    This  concession  is  noteworthy. 
8  Cadbury,  The  Style  and  Literary  Method  of  Luke,  p.  3.    Cf .  also  Vogel, 

Zur  Characteristik  des  Lukas  nach  Sprache  und  Stil,  p.  11. 

4  J.  Weiss,  Die  Schriften  des  N.  T.;  das  Lukas-Evangelium,  1906,  p.  378. 
So,  then,  J.  Weiss  argues  still  that  "the  Lukan  writings  as  a  whole  are  the 
work  of  a  man  of  the  postapostolic  generation."     But  Loofs  regards  Luke 
as  the  author  of  the  Acts  (What  Is  the  Truth  about  Jesus  Christ  f,  p.  91). 

5  l/uke  the  Physician^  pp.  7,  21,  n.  2. 


to  say  that  Luke  did  not  write  any  part  of  the  Acts.  Schmiedel 
admits  that  the  same  man  wrote  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts,  but 
denies  that  he  was  a  companion  of  Paul.  Holtzmann1  holds 
Luke  to  be  the  author  of  the  "we"  sections  only.  Schleier- 
macher  had  credited  the  "we"  sections  to  Timothy.  A  host  of 
critics  (Baur,  Clemen,  De  Wette,  Hausrath,  Hilgenfeld,  Holtz 
mann,  Jiilicher,  Knopf,  Overbeck,  Pfleiderer,  Schurer,  Spitta, 
Von  Soden,  Wendt,  J.  Weiss,  Zeller)  have  reached  "  the  certain 
conclusion  that  tradition  here  is  wrong — the  Acts  cannot  have 
been  composed  by  a  companion  and  fellow  worker  of  St.  Paul." 2 
But  this  judgment  of  critical  infallibility  has  been  reversed  by 
the  steady  work  of  Blass,  Credner,  Harnack,  Hawkins,  Hobart, 
Klostermann,  Plummer,  Ramsay,  Vogel,  Zahn.  Plummer3 
courageously  says:  "It  is  perhaps  no  exaggeration  to  say  that 
nothing  in  Biblical  criticism  is  more  certain  than  the  statement 
that  the  author  of  the  Acts  was  a  companion  of  St.  Paul." 
There  is  no  manner  of  doubt  that  the  author  of  the  "we"  sec 
tions  of  Acts  (16  : 10-40;  20  :  6-28  : 31)  was  a  companion  of 
Paul.  There  is  no  other  way  to  explain  the  use  of  "we"  and 
"  us."  It  may  have  been  a  diary  or  travel  document  or  travel 
notes,  but  the  author  was  with  Paul. 

Is  he  the  same  writer  as  the  author  of  the  Acts  as  a  whole? 
It  is  here  that  patient  labor  has  borne  results.  Klostermann4 
has  dealt  carefully  with  the  "we"  sections.  B.  Weiss  in  his 
commentary  on  Acts  and  Hawkins  in  his  Horce  Synopticce 
have  proven  the  unity  of  the  Book  of  Acts.  There  may  (or 
may  not)  have  been  an  Aramaic  source  for  the  earlier  part  of 
Acts,  as  Torrey  claims.5  We  shall  look  into  that  later.  Har 
nack6  with  great  minuteness  has  compared  the  Greek  of  the 
"we"  sections  with  that  of  the  rest  of  the  Acts.  He  says:7  "It 
has  often  been  stated  and  often  proved  that  the  'we'  sections 
in  vocabulary,  in  syntax,  and  in  style  are  most  intimately 
bound  up  with  the  whole  work,  and  that  this  work  itself  (in 
cluding  the  Gospel),  in  spite  of  all  diversity  in  its  parts,  is  dis 
tinguished  by  a  grand  unity  of  literary  form."  With  great 
detail  Harnack  follows  this  line  of  argument  in  his  Luke  the 

1  Einl.,  p.  383.  2  Harnack,  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  6. 

8  Commentary  on  St.  Luke,  p.  xii. 

4  Vindicice  Lucance,  1866. 

6  The  Composition  and  Date  of  Acts,  1916. 

6  Luke  the  Physician,  pp.  26-120.  7  Ibid.,  p.  26. 


Physician  and  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  It  is  not  merely  agree 
ment  in  words  that  we  see,  but  the  same  syntax  and  style.  He 
returns  to  the  subject  in  The  Date  of  the  Acts  and  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  (1911),  and  meets  the  objections  of  Clemen  and  others 
to  the  identity  of  the  author  of  the  "we"  sections  with  the 
author  of  the  whole  book.  He  had  said  that  "a  difference  in 
the  authorship  of  the  third  gospel  and  the  Acts  can  be  alleged 
with  much  more  plausible  reasons  than  a  difference  in  the 
authorship  of  the  Acts  as  a  whole  and  the  'we'  sections."1 
The  upshot  of  the  whole  investigation  is  seen  to  be  this:  "In 
the  'we'  sections  the  author  speaks  his  own  language  and 
writes  in  his  usual  style;  in  the  rest  of  the  work  just  so  much 
of  this  style  makes  its  appearance  as  was  allowed  by  the  nature 
of  the  sources  which  he  used  and  the  historical  and  religious 
coloring  which  he  aimed  at  imparting."2  Like  a  true  artist 
in  style  Luke  reflects  his  sources  in  both  the  Gospel  and  the 
Acts,  but  not  to  the  obliteration  of  his  own  style  and  method. 

It  can  hardly  be  maintained  that  a  compiler  of  the  Acts  care 
lessly  retained  the  "we"  and  "us"  like  slovenly  mediseval 
chroniclers.  This  author  is  no  unskilled  writer  and  knows 
how  to  work  over  his  material.  Overbeck3  prefers  Zeller's 
theory  that  the  "we"  is  left  designedly  because  the  compiler 
wished  to  create  the  impression  that  he  was  one  of  Paul's  com 
panions,  so  as  to  recommend  his  book.  But  Theophilus  would 
not  be  taken  in  by  a  subterfuge  like  that.  The  only  other  alter 
native  is  the  view  that  the  writer  of  the  Acts  is  himself  the 
author  of  the  "we"  sections  and  the  companion  of  Paul.  Lin 
guistic  considerations  give  strong  support  to  this  view.4  Even 
in  Luke's  Gospel  there  are  eighty-four  words  common  to  it 
and  Paul's  Epistles  that  are  not  found  in  the  other  gospels. 
In  the  Acts  the  number  is  much  greater. 

McGiffert  in  his  History  of  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age 
(1897)  argues  with  great  ability  for  the  compilation  theory  of 
the  Acts  and  vigorously  assails  the  Lukan  authorship.  He 
dissects  the  book  mercilessly  and  regards  it  as  a  second-hand 
work.  But  Harnack  brushed  aside  McGiffert's  criticisms. 

1  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  7,  n.  2. 

2  Harnack,  Date  of  Acts  and  Synoptic  Gospels,  pp.  20  f. 

3  Cf .  Zeller,  I,  43  (English  tr.),  and  S.  Davidson,  Introduction  to  N.  T.. 
II,  272. 

4  Hawkins,  Horce  Synopticce,  p.  183. 


Ramsay1  says:  "Doctor  McGiffert  has  not  convinced  me;  in 
other  words,  I  think  his  clever  argumentation  is  sophistical." 
In  spite  of  MeGiffert's  attacks  and  Torrey's  theory  about  the 
Aramaic  document  for  the  early  part  of  Acts,  the  argument 
holds,  as  the  result  of  this  long  conflict,  that  the  same  man  is 
the  author  of  both  Gospel  and  Acts  and  he  was  a  companion  of 

4.  This  Companion  of  Paul  a  Physician. — It  can  be  stated 
in  the  words  of  Hawkins2  that  the  linguistic  argument  for  unity 
of  authorship  of  Acts  appears  "irresistible."  There  is,  then, 
"an  immense  balance  of  evidence"  in  favor  of  the  view  that 
the  author  of  Acts  was  a  companion  of  Paul,  since  he  was  the 
writer  of  the  "we"  sections.3  The  next  step,  and  an  inevitable 
one,  is  the  fact  that  this  companion  of  Paul,  the  author  of  Acts, 
was  a  physician.  There  is  no  such  statement  in  the  Gospel 
or  in  the  Acts.  But  the  cumulative  linguistic  evidence  to  that 
effect  is  compelling  and  quite  conclusive  to  one  who  is  open  to 
the  proof.  Zahn4  puts  the  matter  tersely  and  strongly  thus: 
"Hobart  has  proved  for  every  one  who  can  at  all  appreciate 
proof  that  the  author  of  the  Lukan  work  was  a  man  practised 
in  the  scientific  language  of  Greek  medicine — in  short,  a  Greek 
physician."  The  detailed  proof  of  this  claim  must  be  reserved 
for  Chapter  VII.  But  at  this  point  it  is  necessary  for  one  to 
realize  the  force  of  the  argument  as  a  whole.  The  credit  for 
this  line  of  argument  is  due  to  Hobart's  The  Medical  Language 
of  St.  Luke  (1882),  in  which  with  utmost  precision  and  minute 
ness  the  medical  terms  in  the  Gospel  and  Acts  are  examined  in 
comparison  with  the  writings  of  the  leading  Greek  physicians 
(Galen,  Hippocrates,  Dioscorides,  Aretseus,  and  the  rest). 
Like  most  champions  of  a  new  line  of  argument,  Hobart  has 
claimed  too  much.  Some  of  the  words  employed  by  Luke  and 
the  other  physicians  belong  to  the  common  speech  of  the  time 
and  have  no  technical  sense.  But  some  of  these  common 
words  do  acquire  a  technical  significance  with  a  physician. 
Thus  in  Acts  28 : 6  the  natives  in  Malta  expected  that  Paul 
"would  have  swollen,"  we  read.  This  word5  appears  here  only 
in  the  New  Testament  and  is  the  technical  medical  term  for 

1  "The  Authorship  of  the  Acts,"  in  Pauline  and  Other  Studies,  p.  305. 

2  Hawkins,  Horce  Synopticce,  p.  185. 

3  Hawkins,  Horce  Synopticce,  p.  189. 
«  Einl,  II,  427. 


inflammation  in  Galen  and  Hippocrates.1  The  writer  of  the 
Gospel  shows  a  clear  desire  to  avoid  a  reflection  on  physicians 
that  appears  in  Mark's  Gospel.  In  Mark  5  :  26,  we  read  that 
the  woman  with  an  issue  of  blood  "had  suffered  many  things 
of  many  physicians,  and  had  spent  all  that  she  had,  and  was 
nothing  bettered,  but  rather  grew  worse."  Now  Luke  (8  :  43) 
describes  her  as  one  "who  had  spent  all  her  living  upon  physi 
cians,  and  could  not  be  healed  of  any."  He  took  care  of  the 
physicians  very  neatly  in  his  restatement  of  Mark's  sly  "dig" 
at  the  doctors.  Hers  was  simply  a  chronic  case  that  no  physi 
cian  could  cure. 

In  the  Acts  we  note  the  clear  implication  that  the  writer 
practised  medicine  in  Malta.  Paul  "prayed,  and  laying  his 
hands  on  him  healed2  him"  (28:8);  we  read  of  the  cure  of 
Publius,  an  evident  miracle  that  Luke  reports.  But  he  pro 
ceeds  (verses  9-10):  "And  when  this  was  done,  the  rest  also 
that  had  diseases  in  the  island  came,  and  were  cured."3  It  is 
to  be  noted  that  Luke  employs  a  different  Greek  word  for 
"were  cured,"  a  word  that  was  common  for  medical  cases. 
The  natural  implication  is  that  Luke  practised  medicine  here 
in  Malta  while  Paul  healed  by  miraculous  power.  The  medical 
missionary  and  the  preacher  were  at  work  side  by  side.  Luke 
may  have  used  prayer  like  Paul.  One  hopes  that  he  did,  as 
all  physicians  should.  But  he  practised  his  medical  art  by  the 
side  of  Paul.  The  people  of  Malta  honored  both  Luke  and 
Paul.  Luke  was  no  "wild  enthusiast  who  cured  diseases"  but 
a  "man  who  continued  to  practise  his  profession  of  physician 
with  success,  and  who  in  it  had  earned  the  permanent  esteem 
of  a  man  of  such  high  temper  as  St.  Paul."4  Harnack5  is  abso 
lutely  convinced  by  the  arguments  of  Hobart:  "The  evidence 
is  of  overwhelming  force;  so  that  it  seems  to  me  that  no  doubt 
can  exist  that  the  third  Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  were 
composed  by  a  physician"  (italics  his).  Deductions  have  to  be 
made  from  Hobart's  list  of  medical  words  in  the  Gospel  and 
Acts.  "But,  when  all  deductions  have  been  made,  there  re 
mains  a  body  of  evidence  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  naturally 

1  Hobart,  Medical  Language  of  St.  Luke,  p.  50. 

3  lOepaxeuovTo.     Ramsay  (Luke  the  Physician,  pp.  16  f  .)  insists  that  I6epa- 
ics6ovTo  means  ("received  medical  treatment"  whether  "cured"  or  not. 

4  Harnack,  The  Acts  of  the  Apostks,  p.  xl. 
6  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  198. 


and  inevitably  slipped  into  the  use  of  medical  phraseology, 
which  seems  to  me  irresistible."1  Chase2  actually  complained 
that  for  twenty  years  Hobart' s  work  "remained  unnoticed  by 
the  assailants  of  the  traditional  view  of  the  third  Gospel  and 
Acts."  But  this  complaint  can  no  longer  be  made.  Clemen3 
has  endeavored  to  show  that  a  physician  could  not  have  written 
the  Gospel  and  Acts:  "Truly  the  author  of  these  writings  em 
ploys  some  medical  terms  in  their  technical  sense,  but  in  a  few 
cases  he  uses  them  in  such  a  way  as  no  physician  would  have 
done."  But  it  is  very  hard  to  prove  a  negative.  Hobart 
undoubtedly  claimed  too  much,  but  Clemen  has  attempted  the 
impossible.  "One  cannot  know  to-day  what  an  ancient  phy 
sician  could  not  have  written.  Of  course  the  absence  of  marked 
medical  traits  does  not  prove  that  a  doctor  did  not  write  Luke 
and  Acts."4  Cadbury's  monograph  is  a  reasoned  attempt  to 
prove  that  "the  style  of  Luke  bears  no  more  evidence  of  medi 
cal  interest  and  training  than  does  the  language  of  other  writers 
who  were  not  physicians."5  Cadbury  claims  that  many  of 
these  medical  terms  belonged  to  the  language  of  culture  of  the 
time  and  occur  hi  the  writings  of  Lucian,  "the  travelling 
rhetorician  and  show  lecturer,"  quite  as  much  as  in  the  Gospel 
and  Acts.  There  is  something  in  this  point  beyond  a  doubt, 
but  Paul  was  just  as  much  a  man  of  culture  as  Luke.  So  was 
the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Yet  these  two  New 
Testament  writers  of  culture  do  not  reveal  a  fondness  for 
medical  language.  It  is  difficult  to  make  comparisons  because 
of  difference  in  subject-matter  and  length  of  books.  The  mere 
tabulation  of  lists  of  words  does  not  carry  one  very  far.  Cad- 
bury6  admits  that  the  selected  lists  of  medical  terms  given  by 
Harnack,  Moffatt,  and  Zahn  "have  greatly  strengthened  the 
argument  by  selecting  from  Hobart  only  the  most  convincing 
examples."  Cadbury  is  wholly  right  in  insisting  that  these 
examples  need  testing.  He  undertakes  to  do  it,  though  con 
scious  of  the  difficulties  in  his  way.  His  method  is  merely  one 
of  tabulation,  which  means  very  little.  The  upshot  of  the 
whole  matter  is  that  the  impression  of  the  most  striking  exam 
ples  in  the  Gospel  and  Acts  remains  unshaken.  Hobart  gives 

1  Chase,  The  Credibility  of  the  Acts,  pp.  13  f.  2  Ibid.,  p.  14. 

3  Hibbert  Journal,  1910,  pp.  785  f . 

4  Cadbury,  The  Style  and  Literary  Language  of  Luke,  1919,  p.  51. 

p.  50.  6IUd.,  p.  39, 



the  full  quotations  from  the  Greek  medical  writers  so  that  one 
can  see  the  context.  We  have  the  context  in  the  Gospel  and 
the  Acts.  The  effect  of  Hobart's  argument  remains  with  me 
after  a  careful  study  of  Cadbury's  arguments.  Most  impres 
sive  of  all  is  it  to  read  Mark's  reports  of  the  miracles  and  then 
Luke's  modifications.  And  then  the  reading  of  the  Gospel 
and  the  Acts  straight  through  leaves  the  same  conviction  that 
we  are  following  the  lead  of  a  cultivated  physician  whose  pro 
fessional  habits  of  thought  have  colored  the  whole  in  many 
subtle  ways.  This  positive  impression  refuses  to  be  dissipated, 
though  Cadbury  is  quite  right  in  saying  that  Luke  could  still 
be  the  author  even  if  he  does  not  betray  by  his  language  that 
he  is  a  physician.  Further  details  will  be  given  in  Chapter  VII. 

It  ought  to  be  added  that  the  medical  element  is  spread  over 
the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  and  is  another  argument  for  the  unity 
of  Acts.1 

5.  This  Physician  and  Companion  of  Paul  Is  Luke. — The 
writer  does  not  say  so.  In  fact,  the  absence  of  any  mention 
of  the  name  Luke  in  the  Acts  is  one  of  the  things  to  be  ex 
plained.  This  "is  just  what  we  should  expect  if  he  himself 
were  the  author  of  the  book."  So  Harnack  argues.2  But  it  is 
a  bit  curious  that  every  other  important  friend  of  Paul,  judg 
ing  by  his  Epistles,  except  Luke  and  Titus,  is  mentioned  in  the 
Acts.  Aristarchus,  coupled  with  Luke  (Col.  4 : 10,  14;  Phile 
mon  24),  is  mentioned  in  the  Acts  three  times.  Once  (Acts 
27 : 2)  Aristarchus  is  mentioned  as  present  with  Paul  and  the 
author  of  the  book  (Luke).  Three  reasons  occur  for  the 
omission  of  Titus.  One,  the  view  of  Harnack,3  is  that  Titus 
is  not  coupled  with  Luke  in  the  Epistles  and  hence  the  omis 
sion  of  his  name  in  Acts  is  not  strange.  This  is  not  quite  sat 
isfactory.  It  is  easy  to  see  why  Luke,  though  retaining  "we" 
and  "us"  in  his  travel  diary,  declines  to  mention  his  own 
name.  It  would  be  known  to  Theophilus  and  thus  to  others. 
But  why  omit  Titus?  Lightfoot4  denies  that  Titus  was  im 
portant  enough  to  be  mentioned  in  Acts,  but  Ramsay8  rightly 
rejects  that  explanation.  It  has  been  suggested  by  A.  Souter 
and  others  (cf.  Origen's  view  of  II  Cor.  8 : 18)  that  Luke  and 

1  Moffatt,  Introduction  to  Lit.  of  the  N.  JT.,  p.  300. 

2  The  Date  of  the  A«ts  and  the  Synoptic  Gosvels,  p.  28. 

*  Ibid.,  p.  28,  n.  2.  « Biblical  Essays,  p.  281. 

6  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  390. 


Titus  were  brothers  and  that  for  this  reason  Luke  does  not 
call  his  name.  It  is  possible  to  understand  II  Cor.  12  : 18  to 
be  a  reference  to  Titus's  brother.  This  use  of  the  Greek  article 
is  common  enough.1  "  I  exhorted  Titus,  and  I  sent  his  brother 
with  him."  The  same  translation  is  possible  in  II  Cor.  8  : 18, 
"his  brother."  Who  is  this  brother  of  Titus?  One  naturally 
thinks  of  Luke. 

Paul  had  other  companions,  but  they  have  to  be  eliminated 
one  by  one.  Some  are  spoken  of  in  a  way  that  renders  it  diffi 
cult  to  think  of  them  as  writing  the  Acts.  This  is  true  of 
Aquila  and  Priscilla,  Aristarchus,  Mark,  Silas,  Timothy,  Tro- 
phimus.  Selwyn2  argues  at  length,  but  not  at  all  convincingly, 
that  Luke  and  Silas  are  one  and  the  same  man.  Crescens  and 
Titus  Justus  are  rather  too  insignificant.  There  remain  only 
Titus  and  Luke.  Curiously  both  names  are  absent  in  the 
Acts,  as  already  noted.  "The  movements  of  Timothy,  Silas 
and  the  others  cannot  be  fitted  in  with  the  hypothesis  that  any 
one  of  them  was  the  companion  at  the  time  in  question.  The 
hypothesis  breaks  down  in  every  case.  With  the  exception  of 
Titus,  for  whose  authorship  there  is  no  other  evidence,  each 
one  of  them  can  be  shown  to  have  been  elsewhere  at  one  or 
more  of  the  times.  Luke  'is  with  me'  at  them  all."3  No 
one  seriously  argues  that  Titus  wrote  the  Gospel  and  Acts. 
Why  not  Luke  ?  Titus  was  not  a  physician.  Was  Luke  ? 

We  know  that  Luke  was  with  Paul  in  Rome  (Philemon  24, 
"Mark,  Aristarchus,  Demas,  Luke,  my  fellow  workers")4  dur 
ing  his  first  imprisonment.  He  is  also  called  by  Paul  at  this 
time  "Luke  the  beloved  physician"6  (Col.  4: 14).  Harnack6 
argues  quite  plausibly  that  Paul  means  to  call  "Luke  my 
beloved  physician."  At  any  rate  it  is  quite  possible,  indeed 
probable,  that  Luke  was  Paul's  physician  as  well  as  helper  in 
the  mission  work.  It  is  quite  possible  that  Luke,  called  in  as 
physician  either  at  Antioch  during  Paul's  stay  there,  or  in 
Galatia  during  a  sudden  malarial  attack  (Gal.  4 : 13),  or  at 
Troas,  where  we  first  note  his  presence  with  Paul,  was  con 
verted  by  his  patient  to  the  service  of  Christ.  He  is  with 

1  Robertson,  Grammar,  p.  770.  z  St.  Luke  the  Prophet. 

3  Carpenter,  The  Christianity  of  S.  Luke,  p.  14. 

4ol  ouvepfoC  IAOU.  The  "we"  sections  of  the  Acts  show  Luke's  work 
with  Paul.  Cf.  Acts  16  : 10. 

6  6  £aTpb<;  6  ^cti^^q.  8  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  3,  n.  2. 


Paul  at  the  last.  "Only  Luke  is  with  me"  (II  Tim.  4 : 11). 
Luke,  therefore,  fulfils  precisely  the  conditions  called  for  by 
the  evidence  unless  there  is  positive  external  evidence  to  the 

But  the  external  evidence  is  unanimously  in  favor  of  Luke 
as  the  author  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts.  "The  unanimous 
tradition  that  St.  Luke  is  the  author  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apos 
tles  has  come  to  us  with  the  book  itself." *  The  Lukan  author 
ship  of  both  Gospel  and  Acts  has  been  universally  recognized 
since  140  A.  D.2  Since  it  is  all  one  way  it  is  needless  to  cite 
it.  Specific  statements  of  the  Lukan  authorship  occur  in 
Irenseus,  Tertullian,  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  the  Mura- 
torian  Canon. 

The  case  seems  to  be  made  out.  Certainly  Kirsopp  Lake 
cannot  be  accused  of  partiality  for  traditional  views  any  more 
than  Harnack.  In  the  Hastings  Dictionary  of  the  Apostolic 
Church  (article  "Acts  of  the  Apostles")  Lake  concludes:  "The 
argument  from  literary  affinities  between  the  'we-clauses'  and 
the  rest  of  Acts  remains  at  present  unshaken;  and,  until  some 
further  analysis  succeeds  in  showing  why  it  should  be  thought 
that  the  'we-clauses'  have  been  taken  from  a  source  not  written 
by  the  redactor  himself,  the  traditional  view  that  Luke,  the 
companion  of  St.  Paul,  was  the  editor  of  the  whole  book  is  the 
most  reasonable  one."  That  is  cautious  enough  to  suit  any 
timid  soul  and  seems  to  express  the  rather  reluctant  admission 
of  Lake  that  is  forced  by  the  overwhelming  evidence.  Har 
nack3  pays  his  respects  to  the  "attitude  of  general  mistrust 
in  the  book,  with  airy  conceits  and  lofty  contempt;  most  of 
all,  however,  with  the  fruits  of  that  vicious  method  wherein 
great  masses  of  theory  are  hung  upon  the  spider's  thread  of  a 
single  observation."  Moffatt4  concludes  that  the  Lukan 
authorship  of  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  "has  now  been  put 
practically  beyond  doubt  by  the  exhaustive  researches  of  Haw 
kins  and  Harnack."  As  for  myself,  I  am  bound  to  agree  to 
this  judgment  of  M.  Jones:5  "This  author  of  Acts  and  the 

1  Harnack,  Date  of  the  Acts  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  p.  28. 

*  Harnack,  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  2. 

*  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  p.  xlii. 

4  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  295.    See  also 
Burkitt,  Gospel  History  and  Its  Transmission,  pp.  115  f. 
6  New  Testament  in  Twentieth  Century,  p.  231. 


third  gospel  is  to  be  identified  with  St.  Luke  the  companion, 
friend,  and  physician  of  St.  Paul."  In  the  light  of  all  the  facts 
known  to-day,  after  a  generation  and  more  of  the  most  exact 
ing  criticism  and  research,  the  theory  of  the  Lukan  author 
ship  holds  the  field,  greatly  strengthened  by  the  new  light  that 
has  come.  Scholarship  can  point  with  pride  to  what  has  been 
done  in  this  field  of  Biblical  investigation.  The  picture  of 
Luke  now  stands  before  us  in  sharp  outline. 


"Only  Luke  is  with  me"  (II  Tim.  4  : 11) 

If  Luke,  the  physician  and  friend  of  Paul,  really  wrote  the 
Gospel  and  Acts,  as  is  now  proven  as  clearly  as  a  literary  fact 
can  be  shown,  one  naturally  has  a  keen  desire  to  know  some 
thing  about  him.  He  was  evidently  a  modest  man  and  kept 
himself  in  the  background  in  both  Gospel  and  Acts,  save  in 
the  incidental  allusions  in  the  "we"  sections  of  Acts.  Indeed, 
the  anonymous  author  of  Supernatural  Religion  seeks  to 
obscure  the  items  that  are  given  and  to  befog  the  picture  of 
Luke  that  has  survived.  "Let  it  be  remembered  that  with 
the  exception  of  the  three  passages  in  the  Pauline  Epistles 
quoted  above,  we  know  absolutely  nothing  about  Luke."1 
The  writer  then  proceeds  to  throw  doubt  on  the  identity  of  the 
Luke  in  Col.  4 : 14  and  Philemon  24  and  II  Tun.  4:11.  He 
speaks  of  "this  literary  labyrinth"  (p.  41)  of  the  "we"  pas 
sages  in  Acts  and  throws  Luke  into  the  waste-basket.  But 
modern  scholarship,  thanks  to  Lightfoot,  Hawkins,  Hobart, 
Ramsay,  Harnack  and  others,  has  thrown  aside  the  three  able 
volumes  on  Supernatural  Religion  that  were  expected  to  destroy 
the  New  Testament.  Let  us  piece  together  the  known  facts 
concerning  Luke. 

1.  The  Name  Luke. — It  is  now  known  for  a  certainty  that 
Loukas2  is  an  abbreviation  or  pet-name  (Kosennamen)  for 
Loukios.3  There  used  to  be  a  deal  of  speculation  on  the  sub 
ject.  Lucanus,  Lucilius,  Lucianus,  Lucius  were  all  suggested. 
Lucanus  is  common  in  inscriptions.4  Several  Old-Latin  manu 
scripts  of  the  fifth  century  read  secundum  Lukanum  instead  of 
the  usual  secundum  Lucam,  probably  "due  to  learned  specula-r 
tion  and  discussion  about  the  origin  of  the  form"5  Loukas. 

1  Supernatural  Religion,  vol.  Ill,  p.  39. 

2  Aouxdtq.  8  Ao&xto?. 
4  Plummer,  Comm.  on  Luke,  p.  xviii. 

6  Ramsay,  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  371. 



"We  have  to  ask  whether  or  not  the  Greek  name  LouMos, 
borrowed  from  the  Latin  Lucius,  could  according  to  Greek 
custom  have  as  a  familiar  by-form  the  Kosennamen  Loukas."1 
It  is  purely  a  matter  of  evidence.  The  proof  has  been  found. 
On  the  walls  of  the  peribolos  which  surrounded  the  sanctuary 
of  the  god  Men  Askaenos  in  Antioch  are  written  a  number  of 
dedicatory  vows  to  the  god.  Some  of  them  are  in  Latin,  but 
most  of  them  "are  the  work  of  Greek-speaking  people,  who 
bore  Roman  names."2  One  of  these  dedications  in  Greek  is 
by  Loukas  Tillios  Kriton  and  Noumeria  Venusta  (evidently 
his  wife).  Both  names  are  Roman,  and  Loukas  appears  as 
Greek  for  the  Latin  Lucius.  In  another  instance  the  same 
man  makes  two  dedications.  In  one  instance  the  name  of  his 
son  occurs  as  Loukios,  in  the  other  as  Loukas.3  There  is  no 
longer  room  for  dispute  on  this  point.  The  vernacular  Koine 
did  employ  Loukas  as  a  pet-name  (cf .  Charlie  and  Charles)  for 
the  Latin  Lucius  (Greek  Loukios).  We  find  this  in  Antioch. 
It  may  have  been  true  anywhere.  In  Acts  13  : 1  we  read  of 
"Loukios  the  Cyrenian,"  but  it  is  quite  unlikely  that  he  is  the 
same  person  as  our  Luke,  the  author  of  the  book,  though  it  is 
the  same  name,  as  has  just  been  shown.  If  Luke  is  the  author 
of  the  Acts,  he  would  hardly  refer  to  himself  as  "Loukios  the 
Cyrenian."  The  use  of  abbreviated  names  is  common  in  the 
New  Testament  (cf.  Silas  and  Silvanus,  Prisca  and  Priscilla, 
Apollos  and  Apollonius)  as  in  the  papyri  and  inscriptions.4 
Plummer5  terms  it  "a  caricature  of  critical  ingenuity"  to  make 
Lucanus  =  Silvanus  because  lucus  =  silva.  Selwyn  in  his  St. 
Luke  the  Prophet  argues  for  this  identification  in  most  incon 
clusive  fashion.  A  name  may  count  for  nothing,  it  is  true,  and 
then  again  a  name  may  stand  for  much.  "The  name  of  a  con 
temporary  and  eye-witness  guarantees  the  truth  of  a  probable 
story,  provided  there  is  no  other  reason  for  raising  objections."  6 

1  Ibid. 

2  Ibid.    See  article  in  Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies,  1912,  pp.  144  ff.,  by 
Mrs.  Hasluck,  where  the  evidence  is  given  in  full. 

3  Ramsay,  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  pp.  376-380. 

4  Robertson,  Grammar,  pp.  171-3. 

6  Comm.  on  Luke,  p.  xviii.  Moulton  (Grammar  of  N.  T.  Greek,  vol.  II, 
part  I,  p.  88)  quotes  Aetixco?  for  Latin  Lucius  in  P.  Tebt.,  I,  33,  3  (B.  C.  112). 
Nachmanson  (Beitrdge  zur  Kenntnis  der  altgriechischen  Volkssprache,  p.  61) 
notes  other  instances  and  considers  it  a  different  name  from 

6  Harnack,  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  146. 


Fortunately  Luke  is  no  longer  an  obscure  name  and  we  can 
"picture  to  ourselves  the  personality  which  stands  behind  the 
name  Luke."1 

2.  A  Gentile,  Probably  a  Greek— In  Col.  4 : 12-14  Paul  sep 
arates  Epaphras,  Luke  and  Demas  from  Aristarchus,  Mark 
and  Jesus  Justus,  "who  are  of  the  circumcision"  (4:10f.). 
Paul  here  seems  to  imply  that  Luke  was  not  a  Jew.  This  is 
the  view  of  commentators  generally,  though  Hofmann,  Tiele 
and  Wittichen  argue  that  Paul's  language  does  not  necessarily 
mean  this.  It  is  possible  that  Luke  could  have  been  a  proselyte 
(a  tradition  mentioned  by  Jerome),  but  there  is  no  hint  of  such 
a  thing  in  Acts  or  the  Epistles.  In  Philemon  23  f .,  Paul  draws 
no  such  line  of  cleavage  between  those  who  send  greetings. 
In  Romans  16  :  21  Paul  calls  "Loukios  and  Jason  and  Sosipater, 
my  kinsmen."  As  in  Acts  13  : 1,  so  here  the  name  Loukios, 
as  we  have  seen,  could  be  the  formal  spelling  of  the  familiar 
Loukas.  But  this  kinsman2  of  Paul  was  a  Jew  and  is  ruled  out 
by  the  distinction  drawn  in  Col.  4 : 10-14.  The  knowledge  of 
Aramaic  shown  by  Luke's  use  of  Aramaic  sources  in  Luke  1 
and  2  and  in  Acts  1-15  does  not  show  that  he  was  a  Jew.  In 
deed,  Torrey3  argues  that  Luke  did  not  always  understand  his 
Aramaic  document,  if  he  had  one.  Per  contra,  the  classic  intro 
duction  to  the  Gospel  (1  : 1-4)  seems  quite  impossible  for  a 
Jew  to  have  written,  even  if  he  were  a  man  of  culture.  It  ranks 
with  the  introductions  of  Herodotus  and  Thucydides  for  brev 
ity,  modesty  and  dignity.  It  is  couched  in  purest  literary 
Koine.  Other  things  in  his  writings  confirm  the  view  that  he 
was  originally  a  heathen  and  not  a  Jew.  He  has  the  wide 
sympathy  of  a  Gentile  of  culture  and  approaches  Christianity 
from  the  outside.  If  he  is  a  Gentile,  as  seems  most  probable, 
he  is  the  only  writer  of  the  New  Testament  (or  the  Old)  of 
whom  this  is  true. 

It  is  probable  also  that  Luke  was  a  Greek  rather  than  a 
Roman,  since  in  Acts  28  : 2,  4  he  speaks  of  the  inhabitants  of 
Malta  as  "the  barbarians,"  quite  in  the  Greek  fashion.  The 

1  Harnack,  ibid.,  p.  146. 

2  Ramsay  suggests  that  these  six  kinsmen  of  Paul  in  Romans.  16  :  7-21  are 
fellow  tribesmen  and  fellow  citizens  of  Tarsus.     Cf .  The  Cities  of  St.  Paul, 
p.  177. 

8  The  Composition  and  Date  of  the  Acts.  Kirsopp  Lake  ("Luke,"  Has- 
tings's  Diet,  of  the  Apostolic  Church)  holds  that  the  facts  about  Luke  can  be 
met  on  the  hypothesis  that  he  was  a  Hellenistic  Jew.  But  not  so  easily. 


Greek  antithesis  was  "Greeks  and  barbarians,"  as  Paul  used 
it  in  Romans  1  : 14.  But  Miss  Stawell  in  a  paper  on  "  St.  Luke 
and  Virgil"  at  the  International  Medical  Congress  in  Oxford 
in  1913  argued  that  Luke  was  a  Roman  and  not  a  Greek.  She 
argues  that  some  of  the  greatest  medical  authorities  of  the 
day  were  Romans,  like  Celsus  (about  50  A.  D.),  who  were 
familiar  with  the  Greek  medical  writers,  as  was  Luke.  She 
pleads  that  Luke  lived  in  Philippi,  a  Roman  colony,  and  had  a 
fondness  for  Rome,  as  the  close  of  the  Acts  shows.  She  argues, 
also,  that  Luke  is  a  Latin  name,  "  a  surname  in  the  gens  Anncea 
to  which  Seneca,  Gallio,  and  Lucan  all  belonged."  l  His  ap 
parent  liberty  in  Rome  while  Paul  was  a  prisoner  may  be  due 
to  his  being  a  cadet  of  that  house.  She  draws  a  parallel  be 
tween  the  ^Eneid  and  the  Acts.  Jones  agrees  that  the  sugges 
tion  is  "both  instructive  and  picturesque"  (p.  235).  Ramsay2 
allows  as  one  of  the  possibilities  about  the  name  Luke  that 
"the  evangelist  might  have  been  a  Hellene  bearing  the  simple 
name  Loukios."  In  that  case  he  was  not  a  slave  and  not  a 
Roman  citizen,  not  a  Roman  at  all,  but  "an  ordinary  free 
Hellene."  His  full  name  thus  was  Loukios,  without  nomen  or 
cognomen.  He  says  that  the  other  alternative  is  that  "Lucius 
may  have  been  his  prcenomen  as  a  Roman  citizen;  and  in  that 
case  it  would  follow  almost  certainly  that  the  physician  Lou 
kios  was  a  freedman,  who  acquired  the  full  Roman  name  when 
he  was  set  free."  But  in  neither  case  would  Luke  be  a  Latin 
by  birth.  We  seem,  therefore,  shut  up  to  the  idea  that  Luke 
was  a  native  Greek,  not  Latin.  Whether  he  acquired  Roman 
citizenship  is  uncertain,  though  possible.  The  use  of  Roman 
names  was  very  common  and  does  not  of  itself  prove  that 
Luke  was  not  Greek. 

3.  Possibly  a  Freedman. — It  has  already  been  suggested  by 
Ramsay  that  "physicians  were  often  freedmen;  and  freedmen 
were  frequently  addressed  by  their  prcenomen,  which  marked 
their  rank." 3  And  Loukios  (Latin  Lucius)  could  be  the  prceno- 
men  of  our  Luke  (Loukas)  as  a  Roman  citizen.  Ramsay  adds 
that  "the  custom  of  society  would  make  it  probable  that  this 
physician,  who  led  for  many  years  the  life  of  a  companion  of 
Paul,  was  not  born  a  Roman  citizen  (as  perhaps  Silvanus 

1  M.  Jones,  N.  T.  in  Twentieth  Century,  p.  233. 

2  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  382. 

3  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  382, 


was)."1  Ramsay  notes,  however,  that  "a  libertus  usually 
remained  in  close  relation  to  his  former  master,  who  continued 
to  be  his  patronus" 2  But  there  were  exceptions.  There  seems 
no  way  to  reach  a  positive  conclusion  on  this  point.  Paul  had 
a  Roman  name  (besides  the  Hebrew  name  of  Saul)  and  also 
Roman  citizenship.  Paul  was  not  a  freedman,  but  free  born 
(Acts  22  :  28).  Luke's  ready  pen,  his  versatility  and  his  inter 
est  in  the  sea  are  Greek  traits,3  whether  Luke  was  a  free 
Hellene  or  a  Greek  slave  set  free  with  Roman  citizenship  and  a 
Roman  name. 

Ramsay  declines  to  express  an  opinion  as  to  whether  Luke 
was  a  freedman.  Dean  Plumptre4  has  made  the  interesting 
suggestion  that  the  Roman  poet  Lucanus,  born  A.  D.  39  in 
Corduba,  Spain,  was  named  after  the  physician  Luke.  It 
was  a  common  practice  for  children  to  be  named  after  a  be 
loved  physician.  Hayes5  is  quite  taken  with  the  idea.  He 
thinks  that  Luke  "was  born  a  slave  in  the  household  of  The- 
ophilus,  a  wealthy  government  official  in  Antioch."6  If  so, 
Theophilus  set  him  free,  after  educating  him  as  a  physician. 
Luke  then  won  Theophilus  to  Christ  and  Theophilus  continued 
Luke's  patron.  Gallio  and  Seneca  were  uncles  of  the  poet 
Lucanus.  If  Luke  told  Lucanus  about  Paul,  it  is  easy  to  think 
that  he  may  have  told  Gallio  and  Seneca  about  the  Apostle. 
Thus  the  kindness  of  Gallio  to  Paul  in  Corinth  is  explained, 
and  the  traditional  friendship  between  Paul  and  Seneca  has 
some  possible  foundation.7  It  is  a  pleasing  fancy,  but  that  is 
all  one  can  say. 

4.  Probably  the  Brother  of  Titus. — There  are  other  conjec 
tures  about  Luke  that  may  be  dismissed  at  this  point.  If  he 
was  either  a  Greek  or  a  Roman,  free  or  freedman,  he  was  not 
one  of  the  Seventy  (Epiphanius)  or  the  unnamed  disciple  with 
Cleophas  (Luke  24 : 13)  according  to  "Theophylact's  attrac 
tive  guess,  which  still  finds  advocates." 8  Not  being  a  Jew,  he 
is  ruled  out  ipso  facto.  That  is  not  true  of  the  conjecture  that 

i/Wa.  2/Wd.,p.  383. 

3  Rackham,  Comm.  on  Acts,  p.  xxviii. 

4  Books  of  the  Bible,  N.  T.,  pp.  74  f . 

6  The  Synoptic  Gospels  and  the  Acts,  pp.  179  f .,  197  f . 

6  Ibid.,  p.  197. 

7  Cf .  Lightfoot's  Essay  on  St.  Paul,  and  Seneca,  Comm.  on  Philippians, 
pp.  207-333. 

8  Plummer,  Comm.,  p.  xix. 


he  was  one  of  the  Greeks  who  came  to  Philip  (John  12  :  20). 
It  is  possible  in  itself,  but  there  is  no  proof  for  it  and  it  seems 
to  be  ruled  out  by  the  implication  in  Luke  1  :  1-4  that  the 
author  is  not  one  of  the  eye-witnesses.  But  it  is  possible  that 
Origen  and  Chrysostom  are  correct  in  thinking  that  Luke  was 
"  the  brother  whose  praise  in  the  gospel  was  spread  through  all 
the  churches"  and  who  was  the  companion  of  Titus  (II  Cor. 
8  :  18;  12  :  18).1  This  can  be  true  even  if  he  is  not  the  brother 
of  Titus,  as  is  probable.  If  he  is  the  brother  of  Titus,  as  the 
Greek  idiom  naturally  implies,  then  Luke  is  a  Greek,  not  a 
Roman  by  birth;  for  Titus  is  a  Greek  (Gal.  2  :  3).  And  if  a 
Greek,  he  is  possibly,  though  not  necessarily,  a  freedman. 
Thus  far  we  seem  to  be  quite  within  the  range  of  probability. 
It  may  be  added  that  in  some  manuscripts  (of  II  Cor.)  Luke 
is  mentioned  in  the  subscription  as  one  of  the  bearers  of  the 
Epistle  along  with  Titus. 

5.  Luke's  Birthplace.  —  This  matter  is  still  in  dispute.  There 
is  something  to  be  said  for  Antioch  in  Syria,  for  Philippi  and 
for  Antioch  in  Pisidia.  "The  Clementines  tell  us  that  The- 
ophilus  was  a  wealthy  citizen  of  Antioch."  2  If  Luke  had  been 
the  slave  of  Theophilus  and  was  now  a  freedman,  this  would 
indicate  that  he  was  born  in  Antioch,  though  the  argument  is 
wholly  hypothetical.  But  there  are  other  considerations. 
The  Codex  Bezse3  after  Acts  11  :  27  has  the  following  peculiar 
reading:  "And  there  was  great  rejoicing;  and  when  we  were 
gathered  together  one  of  them  stood  up  and  said."  This  may 
be  a  mere  Western  addition,  but  it  represents  an  early  tradi 
tion  that  Luke  was  associated  with  Antioch  during  the  stay  of 
Barnabas  and  Saul  there.  Blass4  is  confident  that  it  is  the 
insertion  of  Luke  himself  in  the  revision:  "Now  this  we,  which 
is  also  attested  by  St.  Augustine,  clearly  shows  that  the  author 
was  at  that  time  a  member  of  the  church  at  Antioch,  which  is 
the  tradition  given  by  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccl.  3  :  4,  7)  and 
others."  Eusebius  speaks  of  "Luke  being  by  birth  of  those 
from  Antioch."5  This  certainly  means  that  Luke's  family 

1See5.  in  Chapter  I. 

2  Hayes,  Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts,  p.  194. 

3  This  remarkable  reading  in  the  B  text  is  ^v  S&  icoXX-?) 

4  Philology  of  the  Gospels,  p.  131  .    Cf  .  also  Blass,  Ada  Apostolorum,  p.  137  ; 

Lucuntissimwn  testimonium,  quo  auctor  sese  Antiochenum  fitisse  monstrat" 

8  Aouxdc<;  tb  (Uv  y^vot;  <Sv  -cwv  dcrc' 


came  from  Antioch,  but  it  hardly  "amounts  to  an  assertion 
that  Luke  was  not  an  Antiochian,"  as  Ramsay1  argues.  The 
expression  of  Eusebius  is  "awkward,"  but  not  "obviously 
chosen  in  order  to  avoid  the  statement  that  Luke  was  an 
Antiochian." 2  In  fact,  Jerome3  plainly  speaks  of  "Luke  the 
physician  of  Antioch."  Likewise  Euthalius4  describes  Luke  as 
"being  by  birth  an  Antiochian."  Once  more  the  Prcefatio 
Lucce  (placed  in  third  century  by  Harnack)  speaks  of  "Luke, 
by  nation  a  Syrian  of  Antioch."  Plummer5  concludes  that 
"this  is  probable  in  itself  and  is  confirmed  by  the  Acts.  Of 
only  one  of  the  deacons  are  we  told  to  which  locality  he  be 
longed,  *  Nicolas  a  proselyte  of  Antioch'  (6:5):  and  we  see 
elsewhere  that  the  writer  was  well  acquainted  with  Antioch 
and  took  an  interest  in  it  (11  : 19-27;  13  : 1;  14 : 19,  21,  26; 
15  :  22,  23,  30,  35;  18  :  22)."  Antioch  in  Acts  is  the  new  cen 
tre  of  Christian  activity.  It  cannot  be  said  that  this  evidence 
is  absolutely  convincing,  but  it  renders  it  probable  that  Luke 
was  born  and  reared  in  Antioch  in  Syria,  though  he  spent  his 
later  years  elsewhere,  as  in  Philippi,  Csesarea,  Rome. 

But  Ramsay,  like  Renan,  argues  for  Philippi  as  the  place 
of  Luke's  nativity.  He  suggests  that,  since  Antioch  was  a 
Seleucid  foundation,  there  was  a  Macedonian  element  in  the 
population.  "Thus  it  may  very  well  have  happened  that 
Luke  was  a  relative  of  one  of  the  early  Antiochian  Christians; 
and  this  relationship  was  perhaps  the  authority  for  Eusebius's 
carefully  guarded  statement."  Ramsay6  even  suggests  that 
"perhaps  Titus  was  the  relative  of  Luke;  and  Eusebius  found 
this  statement  in  an  old  tradition  attached  to  II  Cor.  8  : 18, 
12  : 18,  where  Titus  and  Luke  (the  latter  not  named  by  Paul, 
but  identified  by  an  early  tradition)  are  associated  as  envoys 
to  Corinth."  But  in  II  Cor.  12  : 18  "the  brother"  can  nat 
urally  mean  "his  brother,"  but  not  "his  relative,"  though  it 
can  mean  "cousin,"  as  Ramsay7  notes.  If  Titus  and  Luke 
were  brothers,  they  were  naturally  born  in  the  same  city. 
Ramsay  admits  that  "  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence  to  justify 

1  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  389.  2  Ramsay,  ibid. 

3  De  Vir.  III.,  vii.     Lucas  Medicus  Antiochensis. 

4  Migne,  Pair.  Gk.,  vol.  LXXXV,  p.  633.     'Avrtoxed?  Y*P  OCJTO?  &x<*pxo>v  -cb 

6  Comm.  on  Luke,  p.  xxi.  8  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  390. 

7  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  18,  n.  1. 


an  opinion."  He  exaggerates  the  difficulty  about  Eusebius 
and  increases  the  problem  in  II  Cor.  12  : 18.  Ramsay  urges, 
also,  the  civic  pride  shown  by  Luke  in  pointing  out  that  Philippi 
is  the  first  city  of  that  division  of  Macedonia.  But  his  long 
residence  in  Philippi  would  amply  explain  such  pride.  Ram 
say  also  argues  that  in  Acts  16  : 9-10  "the  man  from  Mace 
donia"  is  Luke  who  had  been  speaking  with  Paul  about  Mace 
donia  the  day  before  the  vision.  This  is  plausible  and  quite 
possible,  though  Luke,  if  now  a  resident  of  Philippi,  may  have 
gone  there  from  Antioch,  either  before  his  conversion  or  after 
ward.  There  is  nothing  in  Acts  16  :  9-10  to  indicate  that  Luke 
and  Paul  have  met  for  the  first  time.  Rackham1  holds  that  "  it 
is  extremely  unlikely  that  S.  Luke  met  S.  Paul  for  the  first 
time  at  Troas,"  though  Ramsay2  argues  this  view.  Carpenter3 
thinks  that  "the  two  views  may  be  combined  by  supposing 
that  he  was  an  Antiochian  who  was  in  medical  practice  at 

Rackham4  urges  Antioch  in  Pisidia  as  the  place  of  Luke's 
birth.  He  accepts  the  South  Galatian  theory  that  Paul  wrote 
to  the  churches  founded  in  the  first  mission  tour.  He  holds 
that  Luke  met  Paul  first  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  where  he 
preached  "because  of  an  infirmity  of  the  flesh"  (Gal.  4 : 13), 
when  Luke  was  called  in  as  physician.  He  suggests  that  Luke 
descended  from  an  old  Philippian  family  that  had  settled  here. 
His  theory  is  that  Luke  went  to  Antioch  in  Syria  when  Paul 
came  to  the  help  of  Barnabas,  having  been  converted  at  Tar 
sus  by  Paul  before  going  to  Antioch.  It  can  only  be  said  that 
this  view  is  possible,  though  nothing  like  so  plausible  as  the 
tradition  that  Luke  is  a  native  of  Antioch  in  Syria.  The  ques 
tion  cannot  be  settled  yet.  Some  day  we  may  know. 

6.  Luke's  Education. — It  is  plain  enough  that  the  man  who 
wrote  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  was  a  man  of  genuine  culture. 
As  a  physician  he  "belonged  to  the  middle  or  higher  plane  of 
contemporary  culture.  To  this  plane  we  are  directed  not  only 
by  the  prologue  of  the  Gospel,  but  by  the  literary  standard 
attained  in  the  whole  work."5  "This  man  possessed  the  higher 
culture  in  rich  measure,"6  as  his  use  of  his  materials  in  the 

1  Comm.  on  Acts,  p.  xxx.  2  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  201. 

3  The  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  p.  20. 

4  So  Kendall  on  the  basis  of  if)^?  in  Acts  14  : 23. 

6  Harnack,  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  13.  8  Ibid. 


Gospel  and  the  Acts  proves.  "He  had  at  his  command  an 
average  education,  and  possessed  a  more  than  ordinary  lit 
erary  talent."1  If  a  freedman  of  Theophilus  at  Antioch,  he 
would  receive  a  good  education  in  the  schools  there.  As  a 
physician,  he  would  be  sent  by  Theophilus  either  to  Alexandria, 
Athens  or  Tarsus,  the  great  universities  of  the  time.  Alex 
andria  seems  unlikely  in  the  absence  of  any  allusion  to  the 
city.2  We  know  that  Luke  seems  familiar  with  Athens 
(Acts  17),  but  Tarsus  is  much  more  likely.  Hayes3  considers 
it  almost  certain  that  Luke  was  sent  to  Tarsus  and  at  the  same 
time  with  Paul  and  Barnabas,  while  Apollos  was  in  the  Alex 
andrian  university.  If  Apollos  wrote  Hebrews,  it  is  easy  to 
see  what  a  great  part  was  played  in  early  Christianity  by  these 
college  or  university  men  who  became  fast  friends.  In  Tarsus 
Luke  would  receive  a  good  classical  education,  and  would  study 
medicine  "  where  the  great  masters  in  that  profession,  Aretseus, 
Dioscorides  and  Athenaeus,  had  been  educated.  Just  a  few 
miles  away,  at  ^Egse,  stood  the  great  Temple  of  ^Esculapius, 
which  furnished  the  nearest  approach  to  the  modern  hospital 
to  be  found  in  the  ancient  world.  From  the  university  lec 
tures  Luke  got  the  theory  of  medicine;  in  the  Temple  of  Mscu- 
lapius  he  got  the  practice  and  experience  needed."  Thus 
Hayes4  indulges  his  fancy  in  reproducing  the  probable  educa 
tional  environment  of  Luke.  Plummer  agrees  that  it  is  more 
than  probable  that  Luke  studied  in  "  Tarsus,  where  there  was 
a  school  of  philosophy  and  literature  rivalling  those  of  Alex 
andria  and  Athens/'  for  "nowhere  else  in  Asia  Minor  could  he 
obtain  so  good  an  education."  5 

And  yet  Ramsay6  quotes  Strabo  as  saying  that  no  students 
ever  came  from  outside  Tarsus  to  the  university,  in  this 
respect  falling  behind  Athens  and  Alexandria  and  other  schools 
that  drew  students  to  their  halls.  So  one  has  to  pause  before 
concluding  that  Luke  went  to  Tarsus.  Of  course  Strabo  may 
mean  that  not  many  outsiders  came.  The  city  of  Tarsus  was 
dominated  by  the  university  of  which  they  were  proud.  It 

1  Ibid.,  p.  147.  2  Rackham,  Comm.  on  Acts,  p.  xxviii. 

3  Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts,  p.  197. 

4  Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts,  p.  197. 

B  Comm.  on  Luke,  p.  xxi.    Cf .  Strabo,  XIV,  5,  13,  ?iXo<jo?(av  xal  T^V  fiXXijv 
icoeiSefav  lyxfixXiov  Sxaaav. 
6  "The  Cities  of  St.  Paul"  (The  University  of  Tarsus,  p.  232). 


was  a  great  university  in  the  eagerness  of  the  students  for 
knowledge,  and  in  the  great  ability  and  experience  of  some  of 
the  teachers  and  in  the  Hellenic  freedom  for  teacher  and  pupil.1 
Strabo  "praises  highly  the  zeal  for  philosophy  and  the  whole 
range  of  education  which  characterized  the  people  of  Tarsus 
in  his  time.  In  this  respect  they  surpassed  Athens  and  Alex 
andria  and  every  other  seat  of  learning."2  Their  students  went 
to  other  great  universities  for  further  study,  but  were  rich  in  the 
heritage  of  Athenodorus,  the  Stoic  philosopher,  who  spent  his 
closing  years  in  the  University  of  Tarsus.  Seneca,  in  Rome, 
quotes  Athenodorus,  and  Paul  must  have  felt  the  influence  of 
this  "greatest  of  pagan  Tarsians."  Ramsay3  suggests  that 
Athenodorus's  influence  on  both  Seneca  and  Paul  is  the  prob 
able  explanation  of  the  likeness  in  their  phraseology.  Athen 
odorus  "was  long  worshipped  as  a  hero  by  his  country,"  and 
he  influenced  the  university  life  long  after  his  death.  If  Luke 
went  to  Tarsus,  he  entered  into  an  atmosphere  of  great  tradi 
tions,  young  as  the  school  was  in  comparison  with  some  others. 
Of  one  thing  we  may  be  sure.  Luke  received  a  liberal  educa 
tion  at  one  or  more  of  the  great  technical  schools  of  the  time 
and  probably  at  Tarsus. 

7.  Luke's  Conversion. — Here  we  are  wholly  in  the  field  of 
speculation.  It  seems  clear  that  Luke  was  not  a  follower  of 
Jesus  in  the  flesh.  The  Muratorian  Canon  says:  "But  neither 
did  he  see  the  Lord  in  the  flesh."  It  also  states  that  Luke 
became  a  follower  of  Paul  after  the  Ascension  of  Christ.  Jerome 
mentions  a  tradition  that  Luke  became  a  proselyte  to  Judaism 
before  he  became  a  Christian,  but  it  is  unsupported.  The 
Western  reading  (Codex  Bezae)  of  Acts  11 :28  (the  "we"  sec 
tion  at  Antioch)  "would  require  that  his  conversion  to  Chris 
tianity  take  place  before  St.  Paul  met  him."4  This  might  have 
been  under  the  influence  of  the  "men  of  Cyprus  and  Cyrene, 
fleeing  from  Jerusalem;  and  Luke  was  among  the  first  to  hear 
it  and  to  accept  it.  He  told  his  master,  Theophilus,  about  it, 
and  Theophilus  himself  became  interested  and  at  last  con 
verted.  Then  about  the  first  thing  that  Theophilus  did  as  a 
Christian  was  to  give  Luke  his  freedom."5  This  is  possible 

1  lUd.,  p.  233.  *  Ibid.,  p.  232.  3  Ibid.,  p.  223. 

4  Bebb,  "  Luke  the  Evangelist,"  Hastings's  D.  B. 
6  Hayes,  Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts,  p.  197. 


and  plausible.  The  Prcefatio  Litcoe1  speaks  of  Luke  as  "a  dis 
ciple  of  the  apostle,  and  afterward  a  follower  of  St.  Paul." 
This  could  mean  that  Luke  was  a  convert  before  he  met  Paul, 
but  that  does  not  necessarily  follow.  Tertullian,2  however, 
speaks  of  Paul  as  Luke's  magister  and  illuminator.  Plummer3 
thinks  that  by  these  words  "Tertullian  perhaps  means  us  to 
understand  that  Luke  was  converted  to  the  Gospel  by  Paul, 
and  this  is  in  itself  probable  enough."  If  so,  then  Luke  may 
have  been  already  converted  when  Paul  came  to  Antioch  at 
the  call  of  Barnabas.  Rackham4  argues  that,  as  the  Bezan 
text  for  Acts  11 : 28  shows  that  Luke  was  in  Antioch  at  this 
time,  it  is  probable  that  Luke  had  already  been  won  to  Christ. 
"  We  can  suppose  that  after  much  travel  in  the  study  and  prac 
tice  of  medicine  he  paid  a  visit  to  Tarsus  and  its  famous  uni 
versity.  There  he  met  and  was  converted  by  S.  Paul;  and 
when  Barnabas  came  from  Antioch  and  took  back  Saul  with 
him  about  the  year  42  (11 : 25-26),  S.  Luke  accompanied  them." 
Once  more,  one  can  only  say  that  it  is  possible.  If  the  Bezan 
text  for  Acts  11 : 28  does  record  a  fact,  then  Barnabas,  Paul 
and  Luke  are  together  in  Antioch  as  early  as  A.  D.  42.  Once 
more,  if  they  were  college  mates  at  Tarsus,  one  can  understand 
afresh  the  new  tie  that  now  knit  them  together.  "In  all  prob 
ability  it  had  begun  at  a  most  impressionable  age  in  college 
life."5  Luke  met  other  men  of  prominence  in  Christian  work, 
we  know;  Silas,  Timothy,  James,  Mark,  Aristarchus  and 

Harnack6  sees  no  light  on  this  phase  of  the  subject:  "We 
have  no  knowledge  where  and  by  whose  influence  he  became  a 
Christian,  nor  whether  he  had  previously  come  into  sympa 
thetic  touch  with  the  Judaism  of  the  Dispersion;  only  one 
thing  is  certain — that  he  had  never  been  in  Palestine." 

Furneaux7  thinks  that  the  likelihood  that  Luke  and  Paul 
had  been  fellow  students  at  Tarsus  explains  "the  absence  of 
any  record  of  their  first  meeting.  It  is  further  possible  that 
they  had  worked  together  at  Antioch;  or  that  Paul,  when 
stricken  down  by  illness  in  Galatia,  had  sent  for  'the  beloved 

1  Discipulus  apostolorum,  posted  Paulum  secutus. 

2  Adv.  Marcion,  IV,  2.  8  Comm.  on  Luke,  p.  xx. 
4  Comm.  on  Acts,  p.  xxxi. 

6  Luckock,  The  Special  Characteristics  of  the  Four  Gospels,  p.  119. 
6 Luke  the  Physician,  p.  146.  ''Comm.  on  Acts,  p.  258. 


physician/  The  'us'  of  verse  10  shows  that  he  was  not  a  new 
convert."  It  would  be  pleasing  to  think  that  Luke  was  won 
to  Christ  when  called  in  by  Paul  as  his  physician.  This,  to  be 
sure,  could  be  true,  whether  at  Antioch,  in  Galatia  (4 : 13)  or 
at  Troas.  If  Luke  saved  Paul's  life  in  the  frequent  attacks  of 
malaria,  Paul  in  turn  saved  his  soul  by  leading  him  to  Christ. 

Ramsay1  is  positive  that,  though  Luke  was  probably  already 
a  Christian,  he  and  Paul  met  for  the  first  time  at  Troas.  "  Luke 
became  known  to  Paul  for  the  first  time  here."  Ramsay  sug 
gests  that  Luke  was  a  resident  of  Troas  at  this  time  and  that 
Paul  called  him  in  as  a  physician  for  one  of  his  malarial  attacks. 
What  is  certain  is  that  at  this  point  Luke  injects  himself  pur 
posely  into  the  narrative,  probably  by  using  his  own  travel 
diary.  It  may  well  be  that  Luke  had  been  to  Macedonia  and 
spoke  to  Paul  about  the  need  there.  But  that  is  not  certain. 
Least  certain  of  all  is  Ramsay's  insistence  that  Luke  and  Paul 
had  never  met  before  the  incident  at  Troas.  If  they  had  never 
met  before,  it  might  be  that  here  Paul  won  Luke  to  Christ  but 
for  the  implication  in  the  context  that  Luke  is  already  a  Chris 
tian.  Knowling  considers  it  probable  that  Luke  and  Paul  were 
friends  before.  Whether  Luke  was  Paul's  trophy  for  Christ 
or  not,  he  is  now  ready  to  follow  Paul  in  the  service  of  Christ. 

8.  The  Medical  Missionary. — It  seems  plain  that  in  the 
passage  before  us  the  succeeding  words  in  verse  10  lead  to  the 
natural  inference  that  Luke,  too,  was  a  preacher  of  the  Gospel, 
and  had  already  done  the  work  of  an  evangelist.  "  We  sought 
to  go  forth  into  Macedonia,  concluding  that  God  had  called  us 
to  preach  the  Gospel  unto  them."  This  call  to  preach  in  Mac 
edonia  was  answered  by  Luke  as  well  as  by  Paul,  Silas  and 
Timothy.  At  the  place  of  prayer  by  the  riverside  near  Philippi 
"  we  sat  down  and  spake  to  the  women  that  were  come  together  " 
(Acts  16  : 13).  The  poor  girl  with  the  spirit  of  soothsaying 
said:  "These  men  are  servants  of  the  Most  High  God,  who 
proclaim  unto  you  the  way  of  salvation"  (Acts  16  : 17).  Luke 
was  left  in  charge  at  Philippi,  when  Paul  and  Silas  departed, 
and  he  apparently  remained  there  over  six  years  till  Paul  comes 
back  from  Corinth  on  the  third  tour  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem 
(Acts  20  :  5).  Thence  he  is  with  Paul  to  the  close  of  Acts.  So 
he  is  Luke  the  Evangelist  because  he  preached  as  well  as  be 
cause  he  wrote  the  Third  Gospel.  He  had  probably  travelled 
1  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  pp.  200-5. 


a  good  deal  for  the  study  and  practice  of  his  medical  profession. 
Now  he  kept  up  his  work  as  a  physician  and  added  that  of  a 
preacher  of  the  Gospel.  Like  the  Great  Physician,  he  went 
about  doing  good  to  the  souls  and  the  bodies  of  men.  The 
Romans  did  not  rank  the  physician  high,  but  the  Greeks  placed 
him  on  a  par  with  the  philosopher.1  Certain  it  is  that  "his 
medical  skill  would  be  of  use  in  gaining  an  opening  for  preach 
ing  the  Gospel,  as  modern  missionaries  often  find."2  We  have 
already  seen  that  in  Acts  28 : 9-10  Luke  seems  to  mean  that 
he  practised  his  profession  as  physician  during  the  three  months 
in  Malta.  It  is  also  plain  that  "his  history  owes  much  to  the 
fact  that  he  joined  Paul  at  the  critical  moment  when  a  special 
revelation  led  him  to  Europe."3  Various  traditions  report 
Luke  as  preaching  in  Dalmatia,  Gallia,  Italy,  Achaia,  Mace 
donia,  Africa,  Bithynia.  They  are  all  of  no  value  save  that 
they  testify  to  his  work  as  a  preacher  of  Christ.  One  report  is 
that  he  became  the  second  bishop  of  Alexandria.  His  presence 
with  Paul  we  do  know.  In  Philemon  24  Paul  calls  him  a  "  fel 
low  worker/'  but  not  a  fellow  prisoner,  with  him  in  Rome.  At 
the  same  time  (Col.  4  : 14)  he  alludes  to  him  as  "the  beloved 
physician."  In  Rome  he  was  both  preacher  and  physician.  He 
was  Paul's  friend  and  companion  and  trusted  physician.  It  is 
evident  that  Paul  had  frail  health  for  many  years.  We  prob 
ably  owe  Paul's  living  to  old  age,  under  God,  to  the  skill  of 
Luke,  his  physician,  who  watched  over  him  with  tender  solici 
tude.  Luke  is  probably  one  of  "the  messengers  (apostles;  lit 
erally,  missionaries)  of  the  churches,  the  glory  of  Christ" 
(II  Cor.  8: 23).  If  so,  he  is  one  of  the  agents  in  the  great  collec 
tion  for  the  poor  saints  in  Jerusalem,  and  Paul  demands  that 
the  Corinthians  show  unto  them  in  the  face  of  the  churches 
the  proof  of  their  love  (8  : 25).  "He  was  beloved  for  his  med 
ical  skill  and  for  his  ever-aggressive  and  ever-attractive  Chris 
tianity.  He  might  well  be  a  model  for  all  in  the  medical  pro 
fession."4  He  was  "a  doctor  of  the  old  school,"  the  first 
scientific  physician  who  laid  his  skill  at  the  feet  of  Jesus. 
Thousands  have  followed  in  his  steps  and,  like  Luke,  have 

1  Rackham,  Comm.,  p.  xxviii.  *  Furneaux,  Comm.,  p.  259. 

3  Ibid.    Canon  G.  W.  Whitaker  ("Barnabas,  Luke  and  Bithynia,"  The 
Expositor,  December,  1919)  seeks  to  connect  Luke  with  Bithynia.    The 
Prcefatio  vel  argumentum  Luccc  does  say  that  Luke  dbiit  in  Bithynia. 

4  Hayes,  Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts,  p.  188. 


taken  Christ  with  them  into  the  sick-room.  Doctor  W.  T. 
Grenfell,  the  "Labrador  doctor"  and  missionary,  is  a  modern 
example  of  what  Luke  was  in  the  first  century. 

9.  Loyal  to  the  Last. — We  have  Paul's  own  words  to  prove 
that  Luke  was  true  when  others  fled  from  Paul  as  if  he  had  the 
pestilence.  That  is,  if  we  credit  II  Tim.  to  Paul,  as  I  do. 
Paul  is  now  in  the  second  and  last  Roman  imprisonment.  He 
is  facing  certain  death  and  he  knows  it.  Nero  is  persecuting 
followers  of  Jesus  for  the  crime  of  Christianity.  Since  the 
burning  of  Rome  in  A.  D.  64  the  whole  atmosphere  has  changed. 
Before  then  Paul  was  allowed  his  own  hired  house  and  much 
liberty  (under  guard),  and  his  friends  came  and  went  at  will. 
Finally  Paul  was  set  free,  as  the  case  against  him  fell  through. 
But  now  the  air  is  black  with  death.  Many  Christians  have 
already  forfeited  their  lives  for  the  faith.  Paul  is  the  next 
victim.  Now  Paul's  old  friends  in  Asia,  when  they  come  to 
Rome,  avoid  his  dungeon  for  fear  of  death.  Onesiphorus  dared 
all  and  apparently  lost  his  life  (II  Tim.  1  : 15-17).  A  faithful 
band  in  Rome  are  firm  (4  :  21),  but  most  of  Paul's  companions 
have  left  him — Demas,  Crescens,  Titus;  probably  for  good  rea 
sons,  but  they  are  gone.  "Only  Luke  is  with  me."  Luke 
alone  stood  fast.  Paul  longs  for  Timothy  and  for  Mark,  even 
Mark.  Let  us  hope  that  they  came  before  Paul  was  executed, 
and  were  able  to  go  with  Paul  and  Luke  to  the  execution.  Luke, 
doubtless,  saw  to  the  burial  of  the  body  of  his  great  friend. 

And  then  what?  Who  knows?  Gregory  Nazianzen  ranks 
Luke  with  Stephen,  James  and  Peter  as  a  martyr  under  Domi- 
tian  after  a  long  and  useful  career  after  Paul's  death.  Another 
story  is  that  he  died  a  natural  death  in  Achaia  or  Bithynia. 
He  was  loyal  to  Paul.  He  was  loyal  to  Christ  both  as  preacher 
and  physician.  Irenseus  speaks  of  Luke  as  inseparabilis  a 
Paulo.  Jiingst  actually  denies  any  trace  of  Pauline  influence 
in  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts.  That  would  be  amazing  and  is 
not  true.  However,  Luke  does  not  copy  Paul.  He  interprets 
Paul  and  Peter  as  he  interpreted  Christ  out  of  fulness  of  knowl 
edge  and  with  largeness  of  view.  Examination  of  the  Lukan 
books  shows  no  undue  Pauline  influence.  Indeed,  the  portrait 
of  Christ  in  the  Gospel  is  distinctly  drawn  from  pre-Pauline 
sources.  The  picture  of  Paul  in  the  Acts  is  not  taken  from  the 
Pauline  Epistles.  And  yet  Luke's  very  soul  was  knit  to  Paul's 
in  loving  affection.  Paul  was  one  of  his  heroes  to  the  last. 



"And  he  abode  two  whole  years  in  his  own  hired  dwelling,  and 
received  all  that  went  in  unto  him,  preaching  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  teaching  the  things  concerning  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
with  all  boldness,  none  forbidding  him"  (Acts  28  : 30-31). 

1.  The  Atmosphere  of  the  First  Century. — It  may  now  be 
stated  definitely  that  the  second-century  date  for  the  Gospel 
and  Acts  has  been  abandoned  save  by  a  small  number  of  ex 
ceedingly  radical  critics.  The  general  acceptance  of  the  Lukan 
authorship  of  the  two  books  disposes  of  the  Baur  theory  that 
it  was  a  religious  romance  written  for  the  purpose  of  reconciling 
the  opposition  between  Peter  and  Paul.  The  notion  that 
Luke's  Gospel  made  use  of  that  of  Marcion  has  been  given  up. 
It  is  now  known  that  Marcion  used  a  mutilated  edition  of 
Luke's  Gospel.  Blass1  holds  that  Marcion  had  the  Western 
text  of  Luke's  Gospel.  The  arguments  for  the  second  century 
(105-130)  are  given  at  length  by  Schmiedel  (Enc.  Biblica)  and 
by  Holtzmann.2  It  is  argued  that  the  author  made  use  of 
Paul's  Epistles,  of  Josephus,  that  he  imitated  Plutarch's 
Lives  in  his  picture  of  Peter  and  Paul,  that  he  reflects  the 
atmosphere  of  second-century  ecclesiasticism  and  takes  inter 
est  in  the  political  side  of  the  Roman  Empire.  It  must  be  con 
fessed  that  these  are  not  very  weighty  or  very  serious  argu 
ments.  It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  he  used  Paul's  Epistles, 
but  what  if  he  did?  Certainly  the  political  outlook  of  the 
Acts  is  precisely  that  of  Paul's  Epistles  (Headlam,  Hastings's 
D.  B.,  art.  "Acts"),  but  surely  that  argues  for  the  early  date. 
As  to  Josephus,  that  is  more  important  and  will  call  for  dis 
cussion  a  bit  later.  But  that  can  be  true  and  the  author  still 
be  Luke.  The  possible  use  of  Josephus  bears  on  the  date  of 
the  Acts,  not  on  the  Lukan  authorship.  "In  this  event  he 
must  have  been  about  seventy  when  he  wrote  Acts,  which  is 

^Philology  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  145  f.  zEinL,*  1892,  p.  405. 



by  no  means  impossible  or  even  improbable."1  Ramsay2 
pointedly  says:  "We  must  face  the  facts  boldly.  If  Luke 
wrote  Acts  his  narrative  must  agree  in  a  striking  and  convinc 
ing  way  with  Paul's:  they  must  confirm,  explain  and  complete 
one  another."  The  writings  of  both  stand  that  test.  The 
genuineness  of  nearly  all  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  is  now  admitted 
by  the  mass  of  modern  scholars.  The  Lukan  authorship  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  Acts  now  carries  the  weight  of  modern  opinion. 
Ramsay's  researches  show  in  innumerable  ways  how  Luke's 
knowledge  of  first-century  details  can  only  be  explained  on  the 
view  that  he  was  a  contemporary  of  these  events.  The  fre 
quent  changes  in  the  Roman  provinces  (from  imperial  to  sen 
atorial,  and  vice  versa)  make  pitfalls  for  the  unwary.  Luke 
steps  with  sure  tread  because  he  was  on  the  ground  and  knew 
the  facts.  He  has  been  triumphantly  vindicated,  as  will  be 
shown  in  future  chapters. 

2.  The  Date  of  the  Acts. — The  book  was  written  after  the 
Gospel  (Acts  1:1)  and  before  Luke's  death.  Lightfoot  de 
clined  to  discuss  the  date  of  the  Acts  in  his  article  on  the 
Acts.3  Plummer4  states  that  Lightfoot  regarded  the  question 
of  the  date  of  Acts  as  dependent  on  the  date  of  Luke.  So  it  is 
in  so  far  as  determining  the  date  before  which  the  Acts  can 
be  located.  But  it  is  equally  true  that  the  date  of  the  Acts 
determines  the  time  beyond  which  the  Gospel  cannot  go. 
Lake5  puts  the  case  fairly:  "The  evidence  for  the  date  is  very 
meagre.  If  the  Lucan  authorship  be  accepted,  any  date 
before  the  last  events  chronicled,  i.  e.,  a  short  time  before 
A.  D.  100,  is  possible."  Both  books  must  come  within  the 
lifetime  of  Luke.  There  is  no  way  to  tell  how  much  time 
elapsed  between  the  two  books.  Probably  it  was  not  long. 
On  the  whole,  it  is  simplest  to  take  up  the  Acts  first.  There 
are  three  dates  that  are  at  present  argued  for  both  the  Gospel 
and  the  Acts  as  they  hang  together.  But  we  shall  confine  the 
argument  here  to  the  Acts. 

(a)  A.  D.  94  to  100.— Those  who  hold  to  this  date  for  Acts, 
do  so  on  the  theory  that  Luke  made  use  of  Josephus.  As 
already  stated,  Luke  need  not  have  been  more  than  seventy 

1  Moffatt,  Intr.  to  Lit.  of  the  N.  T.,  p.  312. 

*St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  14.  3  Smith's  D.  R,2  pp.  25-43. 

4  Comm.,  p.  xxix. 

6Hastings's  Did.  of  Ap.  Ch.,  article  "Acts." 


at  the  end  of  the  century,  if  a  young  man  when  he  first  became 
associated  with  Paul.  Burkitt1  and  Peake2  accept  the  view 
that  Luke  drew  on  the  writings  of  Josephus.  Stanton3  con 
cludes  that  Luke  made  use  of  the  Jewish  War,  but  not  the 
rest  of  the  works  of  Josephus.  If  this  is  true,  the  late  date  is  . 
not  necessary.  The  date  of  the  Antiquities  is  94  A.  D.  It 
may  be  said  at  once  that  most  of  the  arguments  employed  to 
prove  that  Luke  knew  the  writings  of  Josephus  are  utterly  in 
conclusive.  Some  of  the  arguments  of  Clemen4  and  Krenkel 5 
are  criticised  sharply  by  Belser6  and  Plummer,7  who  calls  them 
"childish."  By  like  arguments  of  common  Greek  words  one 
may  show  that  Luke  was  influenced  by  Thucydides.  Some  of 
the  likenesses  are  due  to  the  use  of  the  Septuagint  by  both 
Luke  and  Josephus.  The  only  matter  of  serious  import  is  the 
fact  that  both  Josephus  (Ant.  XX.,  v.  1  f.)  and  Luke  (Acts, 
5:  36  f.)  speak  of  Theudas  and  Judas  the  Galilean  in  this  order 
as  if  Theudas  lived  before  Judas.  The  two  are  mentioned  in 
Josephus  some  twenty  lines  apart.  The  name  Theudas  is  a 
common  one.  It  is  quite  possible  that  another  man  is  meant, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  tetrarch  Lysanias  in  Luke  3:1.  The  dis 
crepancy  only  exists  in  case  the  same  man  is  meant.  Even 
then  it  is  the  discrepancy  of  Gamaliel  and  not  of  Luke,  unless 
Luke  wrote  the  speech.  There  are  more  divergences  than  like 
nesses  in  the  two  reports  that  suggest  independent  narratives, 
as  in  the  two  reports  of  the  death  of  Herod  Agrippa  I.  Lake8 
considers  the  use  of  Josephus  by  Luke  too  doubtful  to  be  de 
cisive:  "The  decennium  90-100  seems,  on  the  whole,  the  most 
probable,  but  demonstrative  proof  is  lacking."  M.  Jones9 
thinks  these  inferences  about  the  use  of  Josephus  too  "pre 
carious"  to  be  conclusive.  Plummer10  holds  this  hypothesis 
"highly  improbable."  "Moreover,  where  the  statements  of 
either  can  be  tested,  it  is  Luke  who  is  commonly  found  to  be  ac 
curate,  whereas  Josephus  is  often  convicted  of  exaggeration  and 

1  The  Gospel  History  and  Its  Transmission,  ch.  iv. 

2  Introduction  to  the  N.  T.,  p.  135. 

3  The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  part  II,  pp.  263-273. 

4  Die  Chronologic  der  paulin.  Brief e  (1893). 
6  Josephus  und  Lukas  (1894). 

6  Theol.  Quartalschrift,  Tubingen  (1895,  1896). 

7  Comm.,  p.  xxx.  8  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Ch.,  article  "Acts." 

9  New  Testament  in  the  Twentieth  Century,  p.  255. 

10  Comm.}  p.  xxix. 


error."  The  supposed  use  of  Josephus  by  Luke  cannot,  there 
fore,  be  held  to  be  certain  or,  as  I  think,  even  probable.  We 
must  look  elsewhere  for  decisive  evidence  on  this  subject. 
Harnack  (Luke  the  Physician,  p.  24,  n.  2)  says:  "The  time  of 
Josephus  need  not  be  taken  into  consideration;  for  the  theory 
that  the  author  of  the  Acts  had  read  that  historian  is  quite 

Besides,  there  are  strong  arguments  against  the  date  94-100, 
which  Plummer1  summarizes  forcibly.  The  use  of  "the 
Christ"2  as  the  Messiah  instead  of  a  proper  name  Christ 
would  be  hard  to  explain.  The  use  of  "the  Lord"  for  Jesus, 
not  in  Matthew  or  in  Mark  save  in  the  disputed  appendix, 
would  have  been  more  common.  Besides,  would  Luke  have 
kept  21:32  if  written  after  "this  generation"  had  passed 
away?  The  historical  atmosphere  of  Acts  is  not  that  of 
95-135  A.  D.  Besides,  what  could  have  induced  a  com 
panion  of  Paul  to  remain  quiet  so  long  after  his  death  ?  These 
arguments  are  very  strong. 

(6)  A.  D.  70-80. — The  majority  of  modern  critics  date  the 
Acts  here.  But  nothing  of  a  very  positive  nature  can  be 
adduced  for  this  date.  Ramsay3  thinks  that  he  has  found  "a 
clew,  though  in  itself  an  uncertain  one,  to  suggest  the  date 
when  Luke  was  at  work"  on  the  Acts.  The  reign  of  Titus  was 
reckoned  from  association  with  his  father  on  July  1,  A.  D.  71. 
Hence,  Ramsay  argues,  Luke  wrote  the  Gospel  (and  the  Acts) 
about  that  time,  because  he  speaks  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius 
(Luke  3 : 1-2)  in  the  fifteenth  year,  reckoning  from  A.  D.  12, 
when  Tiberius  was  associated  with  Augustus  in  the  empire. 
But  this  is  too  precarious  an  argument  for  so  solid  a  conclu 
sion.  The  chief  argument  relied  upon  for  the  date  shortly 
after  A.  D.  70  is  Luke  21 :  20.  It  is  argued  by  Sanday,  B.  Weiss 
and  others  that  Luke  here  changes  the  language  of  Daniel  9 : 27 
in  Mark  13: 14  and  Matt.  24: 15  ("the  abomination  of  deso 
lation")  to  the  definite  statement  about  Jerusalem  being  "en 
compassed  with  armies."  It  is  held  to  be  a  vaticinium  post 
ewntum.  The  omission  of  scripture  quotation  makes  it  neces 
sary  also  to  omit  the  explanatory  notes:  "Let  him  that  readeth 

1  Comm.,  pp.  xxx,  xxxi. 

2&  xptcrrf?.    Cf.  Luke  2:26;  3:15;  4:41;  9:20;  20:41;  22:35,  39; 
24 : 26,  46. 
3  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  387. 


understand/'  But  the  mention  of  armies  is  very  vague. 
Furneaux1  is  very  positive  and  says  that  "the  Third  Gospel 
cannot  have  been  written  earlier  than  A.  D.  70,  the  year  of  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  Hence,  the  Acts  cannot  have  been 
written  much  before  A.  D.  75."  But  such  a  vigorous  pronounce 
ment  carries  little  weight.  "Savonarola  foretold,  as  early  as 
A.  D.  1496,  the  capture  of  Rome,  which  happened  in  1527, 
and  those  sermons  of  1496  were  printed  in  1497." 2  Surely 
Jesus  could  foretell  as  much  as  Savonarola,  and  Luke  cannot  be 
charged  with  writing  this  prophecy  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem.  Lake,3  who  holds  to  the  late  date,  as  we  have 
seen,  sees  very  little  in  the  idea  that  the  Gospel  of  Luke  must 
be  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem:  "It  is  doubtful  if  there 
are  really  any  satisfactory  proofs  that  this  was  the  case." 
Torrey  (Composition  and  Date  of  Acts,  p.  70)  holds  that  all  the 
items  in  Luke's  report  of  the  prediction  occur  in  Old  Testament 
prophecies  and  denies  that  the  passage  in  Luke  can  be  called  a 
vaticinium  ex  ewntu.  Plummer4  makes  much  of  the  idea  that 
the  date  A.  D.  70-80  allows  time  for  the  "many"  to  draw  up 
narratives  about  Christ,  but  there  was  time  enough  between 
A.  D.  30  and  55  for  that.  Harnack5  had  already  given  up  this 
argument  in  his  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  He  had  himself 6  in  1897 
argued  for  A.  D.  78  as  the  earliest  possible  date  for  Acts.  Now 
in  1909  he  writes  "to  warn  critics  against  a  too  hasty  closing 
of  the  chronological  question."  He  concludes:7  "Therefore, 
for  the  present,  we  must  be  content  to  say:  St.  Luke  wrote  at 
the  time  of  Titus  or  in  the  earlier  years  of  Domitian,  but  per 
haps  even  so  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  decade  of 
the  first  century."  So  astonishing  a  surrender  on  the  part  of 
Harnack  created  consternation  among  many  critics.  It  was 
clear  that  the  matter  could  not  rest  thus. 

(c)  About  A.  D.  63.— The  early  date  for  the  Acts  has  always 
nad  able  advpcates.  Men  like  Alford,  Blass,  Ebrard,  Farrar, 
Gloag,  Godet,  Headlam,  Keil,  Lange,  Lumby,  Maclean, 
Oesterzee,  Resch,  Schaff,  Tholuck,  Wieseler,  have  reasoned  that 
Luke  closes  the  Acts  as  he  does  and  when  he  does  for  the  simple 

1  Comm.,  p.  x.  2  Blass,  Philology  of  the  Gospels,  p.  42. 

3  Hastings's  Dictionary  of  Ap.  Ch.,  art.  "Acts." 

4  Comm.,  p.  xxxi.  5  Engl.  tr.,  1909,  p.  291. 
«  Chronologic  der  alt-christl  Litt.  /.,  pp.  246-250,  718. 

7  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  p.  297. 


reason  that  events  have  proceeded  no  farther  with  Paul.  "  In 
investigating  the  date  of  a  book,  the  first  step  is  to  look  for  the 
latest  event  mentioned."1  And  yet  after  A.  D.  63  some  of 
the  most  stirring  events  in  Christian  history  occurred,  like  the 
burning  of  Rome  in  A.  D.  64  with  the  persecution  of  Christians 
which  is  reflected  in  1  Peter,  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  and  Paul, 
and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Temple  in  A.  D.  70. 
How  are  we  to  explain  the  absence  of  any  allusion  to  these 
great  events?  There  are  three  ways  of  doing  so.  One  is  the 
view  already  stated.  Rackham2  puts  the  argument  clearly. 
It  seems  incredible  that  Luke  should  betray  no  knowledge  of 
Paul's  death  if  he  had  known  it.  That  would  be  the  natural 
climax  to  the  Acts.  The  martyrdom  of  Stephen  and  of  James 
would  have  been  crowned  with  that  of  Paul.  Besides,  Acts  is 
a  joyful  book  and  Paul  remains  full  of  cheer  to  the  very  end. 
If  Luke  knew  that  Paul  went  back  to  Ephesus,  would  he  have 
left  the  prediction  in  Acts  20 : 25  that  he  did  not  expect  to  see 
their  faces  again?  Besides,  in  the  Acts  the  attitude  of  Rome 
toward  Christianity  is  still  undecided,  whereas  after  A.  D.  64 
it  became  openly  hostile.  It  was  clear  that  Harnack  must 
continue  his  studies  on  the  date  of  Acts.  This  he  does  in  his 
Date  of  the  Acts  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels  (tr.  1911).  In  1909 
he  pleads  for  fresh  investigation.  After  an  exhaustive  survey 
of  the  whole  question,  he  says:3  "We  are  accordingly  left  with 
the  result:  that  the  concluding  verses  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apos 
tles,  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  absence  of  any  reference 
in  the  book  to  the  result  of  the  trial  of  St.  Paul  and  to  his 
martyrdom,  make  it  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that  the 
work  was  written  at  a  time  when  St.  Paul's  trial  in  Rome  had 
not  yet  come  to  an  end."  With  this  conclusion  I  heartily 
agree  and  I  had  long  held  and  taught  it  before  Harnack  reached 
it.  Maclean4  considers  this  view  "  the  more  probable."  Blass,5 
indeed,  would  place  the  Acts  as  early  as  A.  D.  59. 

Lake6  says  that  all  this  important  argument  is  weakened  by 
two  other  possibilities.  One  is  that  Luke  contemplated  a 
third  volume  in  which  he  meant  to  go  on  with  the  story  of  Paul, 

Rackham,  Acts,  p.  1.  2  Ibid.,  pp.  li  ff. 

3  Date  of  the  Acts  and  Synoptic  Gospels,  p.  99. 

4  Hastings's  One  Volume  D.  B.,  art.  "Acts." 

5  Philology  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  33  ff . 

6  Hastings's  Diet,  of  the  Ap.  Ch.,  art.  "Acts," 


though,  he  adds,  this  theory  is  not  very  probable.  Ramsay 
argues  for  it,  but  it  is  a  mistaken  notion  to  press  Luke's  use  of 
"first"  in  Acts  1 : 1,  as  we  have  seen.  The  current  Koine  gives 
no  support  for  such  an  idea.  The  other  consideration  ad 
vanced  by  Lake  against  the  sudden  and  apparent  abrupt  end 
ing  of  Acts  is  that  Luke  really  implies  that  the  case  fell  through 
and  that  Paul  was  released  by  his  mention  of  "two  years."  A 
passage  in  Philo's  in  Flaccum  tells  of  a  certain  Lambon  who 
was  kept  in  prison  for  two  years,  which  Philo  calls  the  longest 
period.  The  idea  seems  to  be  that,  if  the  case  did  not  come  to 
trial  in  two  years,  dismissal  came  as  a  matter  of  course.  This 
is  by  no  means  certain,  but  even  if  it  is,  it  would  still  not  prove 
that  Luke  did  not  write  the  Acts  just  at  the  close  of  the  period 
when  there  was  prospect  of  Paul's  release.  Rackham,  like 
Harnack,  is  impressed  with  the  joyous  and  optimistic  note  of 
the  Acts. 

Bartlet  in  his  Apostolic  Age  and  article  on  "Acts"  in  the 
Standard  Bible  Dictionary  argues  that  Luke  closed  the  Acts 
with  Paul's  arrival  in  Rome  for  artistic  and  literary  reasons. 
This  event  marked  the  grand  consummation  of  the  Gospel  in 
the  early  age.  Paulus  Romce  apex  evangelii.  This  natural 
climax  would  be  spoiled  by  the  fruitless  story  of  Paul's  release, 
journeys,  arrest,  trial  and  death.  Certainly  something  can 
be  said  for  this  interpretation.  E.  J.  Goodspeed1  presses  this 
argument  against  the  force  of  Harnack's  conclusion  for  the 
early  date  of  Acts,  which  "carries  with  it  important  conse 
quences  for  early  Christian  literature."  "If  the  subject  of 
Acts  is  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Greek  Mission,  it  has 
reached  in  Paul  at  Rome  a  climax  beyond  which  it  could  not 
go."2  "When  Acts  is  written  Paul  is  a  hallowed  memory, 
and  already  the  sects  are  beginning  to  appear."3  Possibly  so, 
but  one  feels  that  all  this  is  too  subjective  for  Luke.  He  shows 
literary  skill  and  great  ability  as  an  historian,  but  he  does  not 
write  like  a  novelist  for  artistic  effect  by  concealing  important 
facts.  In  the  case  of  the  Gospel  he  carries  the  story  on  to  its 
actual  climax,  the  Resurrection  and  Ascension  of  Jesus.  It  is 
hard  to  believe  that,  knowing  of  Paul's  death,  Luke  avoided 
mention  of  the  subject  for  fear  of  spoiling  his  story.  Believe 
it  who  can.  Headlam4  notes  that  the  arguments  against  the 

1  The  Expositor,  London,  May,  1919,  p.  387.  2  Ibid.,  p.  388. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  391.  4  Hastings's  D.  £.,  art.  "Acts." 


•arly  view  are  not  very  strong,  while  it  is  the  obvious  way  to 
treat  the  close  of  Acts.  Besides,  if  Luke  wrote  after  the  de 
struction  of  Jerusalem,  why  did  he  not  change  "flee  to  the 
mountain"  in  Luke  21 : 21  when  the  Christians  fled  to  Fella? 
On  the  whole,  the  early  date  has  the  best  of  it.  We,  therefore, 
date  the  Acts  about  A.  D.  63  and  in  Rome.  Torrey1  puts  the 
date  for  the  supposed  Aramaic  Document  (Acts  1-15)  A.  D.  50, 
and  the  translation  of  it  by  Luke  and  the  writing  of  Acts  16-28 
not  later  than  A.  D.  64  and  in  Rome.  It  is  needless  to  discuss 
Ephesus,  Corinth,  and  the  other  places  alleged  in  place  of  Rome 
as  Luke's  abode  when  he  wrote  the  Acts. 

3.  The  Date  of  the  Gospel. — Our  conclusion  concerning  the 
date  of  the  Acts  carries  with  it  the  early  date  of  the  Gospel. 
We  have  seen  that  Lake  admitted  as  much.  "It  has  usually 
been  assumed  that  this  (the  date  of  the  Lukan  Gospel)  must 
be  posterior  to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  in  A.  D.  70,  but  it  is  doubt 
ful  whether  there  are  really  any  satisfactory  proofs  that  this 
was  the  case."2  We  have  seen  that  there  are  no  such  proofs. 
The  date  of  the  Gospel  turns  on  that  of  the  Acts.  The  earliest 
evidence  for  the  date  of  Luke's  Gospel  is  Acts  1:1.  Here  Luke 
definitely  refers  to  the  book.  Harnack3  states  the  matter  suc 
cinctly:  "Hence,  it  is  proved  that  it  is  altogether  wrong  to  say 
that  the  eschatological  passages  force  us  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  Third  Gospel  was  written  after  the  year  70  A.  D.  And 
since  there  are  no  other  reasons  for  a  later  date,  it  follows 
that  the  strong  arguments,  which  favor  the  composition  of  the 
Acts  before  70  A.  D.,  now  also  apply  in  their  full  force  to  the 
Gospel  of  Luke,  and  it  seems  now  to  be  established  beyond  question 
that  both  books  of  this  great  historical  work  were  written  while  St. 
Paul  was  still  alive"  (italics  Harnack's).  I  do  not  think  that 
Harnack  has  put  the  matter  more  strongly  than  the  evidence 
justifies.  He  expects  that  some  critics  will  be  slow  to  accept 
so  firm  a  conclusion  after  a  century  of  turmoil  and  dispute. 
The  rapid  conversion  of  Harnack  to  the  early  date  is  viewed 
with  suspicion  by  some  as  unscientific.  Lake4  admits  that 
"Harnack's  powerful  advocacy  has  turned  the  current  of  feel 
ing  in  favor  of  the  traditional  view,  but  he  has  really  dealt 

1  Composition  and  Date  of  Acts,  p.  67. 
2Hastings's  Diet.  Ap.  Church,  art.  "Acts." 

3  Date  of  Acts  and  Synoptic  Gospels,  p.  124. 

4  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Ch.,  art.  "Luke." 


adequately  with  only  one  side  of  the  question  and  dismissed 
the  theological  and  (to  a  somewhat  less  extent)  the  historical 
difficulty  too  easily."  The  theological  argument  strongly  con 
firms  the  early  date,  for  the  picture  of  Christ  in  the  Gospel  of 
Luke  is  distinctly  more  primitive  than  that  of  Paul  in  the  Epis 
tles  of  the  first  Roman  imprisonment  (Philippians,  Colossians, 
Ephesians,  Philemon),  A.  D.  61-63.  Indeed,  the  same  thing 
is  true  of  Acts,  particularly  of  the  first  half  of  the  book.  The 
historical  question  is  dealt  with  in  great  detail  by  Ramsay  in 
his  various  books.  It  cannot  be  said  that  the  proof  here  argues 
strongly  for  63  as  against  75  A.  D.,  but  there  is  nothing  that 
is  hostile  to  the  63  date.  The  historical  argument  is  decidedly 
against  A.  D.  95  to  100  A.  D.  Lake  wishes  to  leave  the  ques 
tion  of  the  date  sub  judice  for  the  present.  Jones1  gives  a  fair 
resume  of  Harnack's  arguments  for  A.  D.  63,  but  still  holds  to 
A.  D.  75-80  as  "on  the  whole  more  satisfactory."  But  the 
facts  brought  out  concerning  A.  D.  63  as  the  date  for  Acts  will 
meet  with  increasing  acceptance  from  scholars,  in  my  opinion. 

If  Luke  wrote  Acts  while  Paul  was  alive  and  in  Rome,  then 
he  wrote  the  Gospel  either  before  that,  while  in  Csesarea  (two 
years),  or  he  finished  it  after  reaching  Rome,  before  he  wrote 
the  Acts.  Torrey2  argues,  naturally,  that  the  Book  of  Acts  was 
an  afterthought  when  Luke  wrote  the  prologue  to  the  Gospel. 
But  Chase3  is  positive  that  Luke  had  the  Acts  in  mind  and 
meant  the  same  prologue  for  both  books.  It  matters  little. 
The  extreme  brevity  of  the  address  to  Theophilus  in  Acts  with 
the  reference  to  the  prologue  in  the  Gospel  argues  for  a  short 
period  between  the  two  volumes.  Torrey  therefore  suggests 
A.  D.  61  as  the  latest  date  for  the  Gospel.  Moffatt4  thinks  it 
unsafe  to  contend  that  nine  or  ten  years  should  elapse  between 
the  two  books. 

There  remains  only  one  further  difficulty  of  importance  in 
the  way  of  dating  the  Gospel  of  Luke  so  early  as  59  or  60  in 
Csesarea  or  61  in  Rome.  It  is  certain  that  Luke  used  the 
Gospel  of  Mark  as  one  of  his  many  sources  for  his  Gospel. 
Synoptic  criticism  has  proved  this  as  clearly  as  seems  possible.5 

1 N.  T.  in  Twentieth  Century,  p.  260. 

2  Composition  and  Date  of  Acts,  p.  68. 

3  Credibility  of  the  Acts,  p.  16.  4  Intr.  to  Lit.  of  N.  T.,  p.  313. 

5  See  Sanday  et  alii,  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem  (1911);  Haw 
kins,  Horce  Synoptica?  (1911);  Robertson,  Studies  in  Mark's  Gospel  (1919). 


Can  the  Gospel  of  Mark  be  dated  before  A.  D.  59?  Jones1 
is  convinced  that  Mark's  Gospel  does  not  stand  in  the  way. 
Edmundson2  holds  that  Luke  had  an  earlier  recension  of  Mark 
"for  the  use  of  Greek-speaking  converts  in  Judea."  But  this 
hypothesis  is  by  no  means  necessary.  Luke  made  use  of  the 
Logia  of  Jesus  (Q)  as  did  Matthew,  but  no  trouble  arises  from 
this  source.  It  probably  belongs  to  the  period  before  50  A.  D. 
I  have  discussed  the  date  of  Mark's  Gospel  at  some  length  in 
my  Studies  in  Mark's  Gospel  and  need  not  repeat  the  arguments 
here.  Tradition  and  internal  evidence  combine  to  show  that 
Mark  wrote  the  Gospel  while  Peter  was  still  alive.  There  is 
good  ground  for  thinking  that  Mark3  was  in  existence  by 
A.  D.  50.  Both  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  and  the  Gospel  of 
Luke  make  use  of  Mark's  Gospel.  We  know  from  Col.  4  : 10, 14 
that  Mark  and  Luke  were  with  Paul  in  Rome.  Harnack4 
finds  that  the  latest  recension  of  Mark's  Gospel  must  come  in 
"the  sixth  decade  of  the  first  century  at  the  latest."  It  is 
therefore  quite  possible  that  Luke  either  in  Csesarea  or  in 
Rome  saw  a  copy  of  Mark's  Gospel.  Nolloth5  places  the 
Gospel  of  Luke  57  or  58  A.  D. 

4.  The  Historical  Worth  of  the  Lukan  Writings. — The  remain 
der  of  the  present  volume  is  an  investigation  of  the  reliability 
of  Luke  as  a  historian  and  the  credibility  of  his  works.  The 
evidence  must  be  discussed  in  detail.  The  proof  will  be  cumu 
lative  and  varied.  But  at  this  stage  of  the  discussion  the  point 
can  be  justly  made  that  the  early  date  of  both  Gospel  and 
Acts  gives  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  the  historical  value 
of  the  books.  There  was  less  time  for  legends  to  grow.  The 
author  was  nearer  to  his  sources  of  information.  The  historian 
who  is  a  near  contemporary  is  not  always  able  to  give  a  true 
and  large  perspective  for  his  facts,  though  Thucydides  did  it. 
But,  at  any  rate,  since  Luke  the  physician,  the  friend  of  Paul, 
wrote  these  two  books,  they  cannot  be  thrown  aside  as  second- 
century  romances  written  to  deify  Jesus  and  to  idealize  Peter 
and  Paul.6  The  writer  is  so  close  to  the  facts  of  which  he 

1 N.  T.  in  the  Twentieth  Century,  p.  258. 

2  The  Church  in  Rome  During  the  First  Century,  p.  67,  n.  4. 

3  Nolloth,  The  Rise  of  the  Christian  Religion,  1917,  p.  18. 

4  The  Date  of  Acts  and  Synoptic  Gospels,  p.  133.  6  Op.  cit.,  p.  15. 

6  The  Tubingen  view  has  been  abandoned.  Cf .  Chase,  Credibility  of  the 
Acts,  p.  9.  Jiilicher  (EinL,  p.  355)  still  speaks  of  "a  genuine  core"  in  Acts 
which  is  "overgrown  with  legendary  accretions." 


writes  that  he  has  to  receive  serious  consideration  to  see  if, 
after  all,  he  has  not  drawn  his  characters  to  the  life. 

Even  Harnack1  balks  at  the  miraculous  element  in  Luke's 
Gospel  and  the  Acts.  He  ranks  Luke  far  above  Josephus  in 
historical  worth,2  but  his  prejudice  against  anything  super 
natural  explains  his  reluctance  to  rank  Luke  among  the  very 
highest  historians.  "The  book  has  now  been  restored  to  the 
position  of  credit  which  is  its  rightful  due.  It  is  not  only, 
taken  as  a  whole,  a  genuinely  historical  work,  but  even  in  the 
majority  of  its  details  it  is  trustworthy."3  That  is  all  true, 
but  Harnack  fails  to  appraise  Luke's  work  as  highly  as  it  de 
serves.  But  his  witness  is  remarkable  when  one  considers  how 
far  Harnack  has  come. 

But  Ramsay  has  made  the  same  journey,  only  he  has  been 
longer  coming  and  has  come  farther.  Let  him  tell  his  own 
story:4  "I  began  with  a  mind  unfavorable  to  it  (the  value  of 
the  Acts),  for  the  ingenuity  and  apparent  completeness  of  the 
Tubingen  theory  had  at  one  time  quite  convinced  me.  .  .  . 
It  was  gradually  borne  in  upon  me  that  in  various  details  the 
narrative  showed  marvellous  truth."  The  leaven  worked  in 
Ramsay's  mind  as  he  kept  up  his  researches  in  Asia  Minor. 
He  came  to  the  study  of  Luke  and  Paul  from  the  side  of  classi 
cal  scholarship  and  the  archaeology  of  the  Grseco-Roman  civili 
zation.  The  whole  drift  of  modern  criticism  is  reflected  in 
Ramsay's  own  experience.  "The  question  among  modern 
scholars  now  is  with  regard  to  Luke's  credibility  as  a  historian; 
it  is  generally  conceded  that  he  wrote  at  a  comparatively  early 
date,  and  had  authorities  of  high  character,  even  when  he 
himself  was  not  an  eye-witness.  How  far  can  we  believe  his 
narrative?  The  present  writer  takes  the  view  that  Luke's 
history  is  unsurpassed  in  respect  of  its  trustworthiness."5 
This  testimony  of  Ramsay  is  of  the  greatest  value.  Ramsay  is 
not  infallible,  but  he  is  sincere  and  able,  and  relates  with  im 
mense  power  his  own  conversion  to  the  high  estimate  of  Luke 
as  a  historian.  "The  first  and  the  essential  quality  of  the 
historian  is  truth."6  "The  more  that  I  have  studied  the  nar- 

1Cf.  his  "Primitive  Legends  of  Christendom"  in  his  Date  of  the  Acts 
and  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  pp.  136-162. 

2  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  203-229. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  298.  « St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  8. 
6  The  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  81.     6  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  4. 


rative  of  the  Acts,  and  the  more  I  have  learned  year  after  year 
about  Greco-Roman  society  and  thoughts  and  fashions  and 
organizations  in  those  provinces,  the  more  I  admire  and  the 
better  I  understand.  I  set  out  to  look  for  truth  on  the  border 
land  where  Greece  and  Asia  meet,  and  found  it  here.  You 
may  press  the  words  of  Luke  in  a  degree  far  beyond  any  other 
historian's,  and  they  stand  the  keenest  scrutiny  and  the  hard 
est  treatment,  provided  always  that  the  critic  knows  the  sub 
ject  and  does  not  go  beyond  the  limits  of  science  and  justice."  1 
That  judgment  will  be  found  to  be  true  if  one  looks  at  all  the 
facts  with  an  open  mind. 

There  is  hardly  need  to  say  more,  but  for  one  thing.  No 
plea  is  made  that  Luke  could  not  make  any  mistakes  because 
he  was  inspired.  He  himself  makes  no  direct  claim  to  inspira 
tion.  That  is  a  matter  of  opinion.  We  know  very  little  about 
the  nature  of  inspiration.  It  is  a  fact  as  life  is  a  fact,  but  we 
understand  neither  one.  The  writings  of  Luke  are  just  as 
much  inspired  after  research  has  confirmed  them  as  they  were 
before;  no  more,  no  less.  Luke  is  entitled  to  be  trusted  like 
any  other  ancient  historian.  It  is  not  necessary  to  show  that 
he  never  made  a  mistake  or  to  be  able  to  solve  every  difficulty 
raised  by  his  writings  in  order  to  form  an  intelligent  opinion 
about  the  value  of  his  works.2  Ramsay3  puts  the  case  justly: 
"Our  hypothesis  is  that  Acts  was  written  by  a  great  historian, 
a  writer  who  set  himself  the  task  to  record  the  facts  as  they 
occurred,  a  strong  partisan  indeed,  but  raised  above  partiality 
by  his  perfect  confidence  that  he  had  only  to  describe  the  facts 
as  they  occurred,  in  order  to  make  the  truth  of  Christianity 
and  the  honor  of  Paul  apparent."  Ramsay,  after  a  lifetime  of 
research,  ranks  Luke  as  the  greatest  of  all  historians,  ancient 
or  modern.  The  Gospel  stands  the  same  test  that  the  Acts 
has  undergone.  It  is  not  only  the  most  beautiful  book  in  the 
world,  but  it  is  written  with  the  utmost  care  and  skill.  Luke 
himself  tells  us  his  methods  of  work  upon  this  book,  methods 
that  he  undoubtedly  applied  also  to  his  work  upon  the  Acts. 
We  are  now  in  a  position  to  let  Luke  speak  for  himself  concern 
ing  his  habits  and  motives  as  a  historian. 

1  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  89. 

2  Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  16.  *  Ibid.,  p.  14. 


"It  seemed  good  to  me  also"  (Luke  1 : 3) 

1.  The  Habits  of  a  Literary  Man. — Luke  alone  has  a  literary 
prologue  to  his  Gospel  (1 : 1-4)  that  answers  also  for  the  Acts, 
whether  he  meant  it  to  do  so  at  the  time  or  not.  It  is  imma 
terial  whether  or  not  Luke  consciously  imitated  the  prefaces 
of  Herodotus,  Thucydides  and  Polybius,  or  that  of  Dioscorides, 
the  famous  medical  writer  on  plants  (materia  medico),  and  of 
Hippocrates.  There  are  verbal  parallels  to  one  or  all  of  them 
and  Luke's  does  not  suffer  by  comparison  with  any  one  of  them. 
The  preface  of  Luke's  Gospel  "  is  modelled  on  the  conventional 
lines  of  ancient  literature,"  2  as  is  natural  for  one  who  under 
takes  to  write  a  history.  "Luke's  method  is  historical,  but 
his  object,  like  that  of  John  (20 :  31),  is  religious."3  The  point 
to  note  here  is  that  it  is  "Luke's  intention  to  write  history, 
and  not  polemical  or  apologetic  treatises."  4  Hence  he  reveals 
his  method  of  work  in  these  opening  verses  of  the  Gospel  in  a 
clear  manner.  All  that  we  really  know  about  the  composition 
of  early  narratives  concerning  the  life  of  Christ  we  obtain  from 
these  verses.5  Their  value  is  therefore  inestimable.  With 
utter  frankness  Luke  lays  bare  his  literary  plan,  method  and 
spirit.  "Great  historians  are  the  rarest  of  writers."6  Ram 
say  undertakes  to  show  that  Luke  measures  up  to  the  standard 
of  Thucydides,  and  in  some  respects  surpasses  him.  It  is 
important,  therefore,  to  see  what  Luke  has  to  say  about  him 
self  and  his  habits  of  work. 

The  preface  is  not  only  literary  in  structure  and  vocabulary, 
but  it  is  also  periodic  in  form.  It  is  written  in  the  grand  style. 
Blass7  would  call  it  Atticistic,  but  it  is  enough  to  say  that  it  is 
in  the  literary  Koine.  The  sentence8  is  composed  of  six  mem- 

1  The  Biblical  Review,  April,  1920. 

2  Moffatt,  Intr.  to  Lit.  of  N.  T.,  p.  263.  » Ibid. 
4  Plummer,  Comm.  on  Luke,  p.  xxxvi. 

6  Plummer,  Comm.  on  Luke,  p.  2. 

6  Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  3. 

7  Philology  of  the  Gospels,  p.  9.  8  Ibid.,  p.  10. 



bers,  three  in  the  protasis  and  three  in  the  apodosis,  and  they 
correspond  with  each  other  in  the  style  of  the  finished  literary 
writer.  The  language  is  ornate  rather  than  colloquial.  But, 
withal,  it  is  precise  and  there  is  not  any  display  of  rhetoric. 
There  is  literary  skill  beyond  a  doubt,  that  no  one  but  a  man 
of  real  culture  can  show.  Luke  nowhere  else  in  his  writings 
employs  just  this  style,  because  elsewhere  he  follows  more  or 
less  closely  his  sources. 

But  we  are  fortunate  in  this  glimpse  of  the  historian  in  his 
study.  It  is  not  hard  to  see  the  pile  of  notes  of  conversation 
or  of  investigation  lying  near  at  hand.  Here  are  papyri  rolls 
of  previous  monographs  on  various  phases  of  the  life  of  Christ. 
Luke  himself  sits  by  his  own  small  desk  with  his  own  roll 
spread  out  before  him.  He  writes  after  he  has  gotten  ready  to 
write  and  with  all  available  data  at  hand.  The  papyri  dis 
covered  in  Egypt1  help  us  to  reproduce  the  workshop  of  Luke, 
who  proved  to  be  the  greatest  of  all  historians,  by  the  skill 
that  he  displayed  in  the  use  of  his  materials.  Renan2  rightly 
terms  the  Gospel  of  Luke  "the  most  literary  of  the  Gospels," 
as  well  as  the  most  beautiful  book  in  the  world.  Sanday3  says: 
"St.  Luke  has  more  literary  ambition  than  his  fellows."  The 
prologue  has  the  aim  of  an  educated  man  with  scientific  train 
ing  and  habits.  "Something  of  the  scholar's  exactness  is 
included  in  the  ideal  of  Luke."4  The  writer  undoubtedly 
employs  the  same  literary  methods  for  the  Acts  that  he  men 
tions  in  the  preface  to  the  Gospel.5 

Luke  has  taken  great  pains  to  make  himself  understood  in 
his  prologue  and  has  given  a  great  deal  of  valuable  information 

1  Not  all  students  have  access  to  the  great  printed  collections  of  papyri 
like  the  Amherst  Papyri  by  Grenfell  and  Hunt  (P.  Amh.),  the  JZgyptische 
Urkunden  aus  den  Kceniglichen  Museen  zu  Berlin  (B.  G.  U.),  Greek  Papyri 
in  the  British  Museum  (P.  Brit.  Mus.),  Fayum  Towns  and  their  Papyri  by 
Grenfell  and  Hunt  and  Hogarth  (P.  Fay.),  the  Hibeh  Papyri  by  Grenfell 
and  Hunt   (P.   Hib.),   the  Oxyrhynchus  Papyri  by  Grenfell  and  Hunt 
(P.  Oxy.).    There  are  convenient  handbooks  that  give  valuable  informa 
tion  concerning  the  papyri  like  Milligan's  Greek  Papyri,  Deissmann's  Bible 
Studies  and  his  Light  from  the  Ancient  East,  Milligan's  New  Testament 
Documents,  Cobern's  The  New  Archaeological  Discoveries  and  Their  Bear 
ing  upon  the  New  Testament,  Souter's  Pocket  Lexicon  of  the  Greek  New 
Testament,  and  in  particular  Moulton  and  Milligan's  Vocabulary  of  the  New 
Testament.    Abbott-Smith's  Manual  Lexicon  of  the  Greek  N.  T.  is  in  press. 

2  Les  Evangiks,  chap.  XIII.  3  Book  by  Book,  p.  401. 
4  Hayes,  Synoptic'Gospels  and  Acts,  p.  217.        6  Furneaux,  Acts,  p.  1. 


in  condensed  form,  but  he  has  been  seriously  misunderstood  at 
several  points  as  will  be  shown.1  Luke  knows  that  what  he 
says  must  be  trustworthy,  but  he  is  entitled  to  be  judged  by 
what  he  undertook  to  do,  not  by  our  theories  of  what  he  ought 
to  have  done.  "It  is  necessary  to  study  every  historian's 
method,  and  not  to  judge  him  according  to  whether  or  not  he 
uses  our  methods."  2  So  then  we  must  study  Luke's  method, 
not  that  of  the  modern  critic  of  Luke.  Let  Luke  himself  speak 
to  us.  What  does  he  say  of  his  own  qualifications  for  his  great 

2.  Stimulated  by  the  Work  of  Others. — "Forasmuch  as  many 
have  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a  narrative  ...  it  seemed 
good  to  me  also."  The  reason  is  stated  in  a  formal  manner, 
but  with  perfect  directness.  The  grammatical  construction3  is 
like  that  in  Acts  15:  24,  25:  "Forasmuch  as  we  have  heard  .  .  . 
it  seemed  good  unto  us."  How  "many"  had  made  such 
"attempts"?  No  one  knows,  but  "this  preface  gives  a  lively 
picture  of  the  intense,  universal  interest  felt  by  the  early 
Church  in  the  story  of  the  Lord  Jesus:  Apostles  constantly  tell 
ing  what  they  had  seen  and  heard;  many  of  their  hearers  tak 
ing  notes  of  what  they  said  for  the  benefit  of  themselves  and 
others:  through  these  gospelets  acquaintance  with  the  evan 
gelic  history  circulating  among  believers,  creating  a  thirst  for 
more  and  yet  more;  imposing  on  such  a  man  as  Luke  the  task 
of  preparing  a  Gospel  as  full,  correct  and  well-arranged  as  pos 
sible  through  the  use  of  all  available  means — previous  writings 
or  oral  testimony  of  surviving  witnesses."  4  Cicero  employed 
shorthand  in  the  trial  of  Catiline  and  shorthand  was  much  in 
vogue  in  the  first  century  A.  D.  Salmon5  thinks  that  the 
Logia  of  Jesus  (Q)  was  written  down  in  notes  during  the  life  of 
Jesus.  The  discovery  of  Sayings  of  Jesus  in  the  Oxyrhynchus 
Papyri  illustrates  how  this  was  done. 

There  is  no  real  objection  to  thinking  of  a  considerable  num 
ber  of  fragmentary  reports  of  the  life  and  words  of  Jesus. 

1  Blass,  Philology  of  the  Gospels,  p.  7. 

2  Ramsay,  St.  Paid  the  Traveller,  p.  17. 

3  Plummer,  Comm.,  p.  2.    The  word  Ixst^xep  (iml,  8^,'irfp)  is  common  in 
ancient  Greek  and  the  Lxx,  but  not  elsewhere  in  the  N.  T.    In  Acts  15  : 24 
it  is  exetB^. 

4  Bruce,  Expositors1  Greek  Test.,  on  Luke  1:4. 

5  Human  Element  in  the  Gospels,  p.  274.     So  Ramsay,  The  Expositor,  May, 


Only  the  so-called  apocryphal  Gospels  are  ruled  out  because 
they  belong  to  a  much  later  time.  "Probably  all  the  docu 
ments  here  alluded  to  were  driven  out  of  existence  by  the 
manifest  superiority  of  the  four  canonical  Gospels."  So  Plum- 
mer1  argues,  unless,  forsooth,  Luke  included  Mark's  Gospel  and 
the  Logia  of  Matthew  in  the  list,  as  now  seems  certain.  The 
Logia  of  Matthew  is  largely  preserved  by  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 
and  the  Gospel  of  Luke.  Mark's  Gospel,  used  by  both  Matthew 
and  Luke,  has  survived  intact  save  for  the  ending.  But  the 
other  sources  have  disappeared. 

Does  Luke  mean  to  disparage  the  other  attempts  at  writing 
accounts  of  Jesus?  He  certainly  does  not  mean  censure  since 
he  brackets  himself,  "me  also,"  with  the  other  writers.2  The 
word3  for  "attempted"  literally  means  "to  take  in  hand,  to 
undertake,"  and  does  not  of  itself  imply  failure  or  error.  There 
is  nothing  hi  this  context  to  suggest  that  previous  efforts  were 
heretical  or  unreliable.  Luke  does  imply  that  they  were  in 
complete  and  so  inadequate  for  the  needs  of  Theophilus  and 
for  others  like  him.  Theophilus  had  received  instruction4  of  a 
more  or  less  formal  nature,  like  a  catechumen,  concerning 
Jesus,  but  Luke  wishes  him  to  have  a  fuller  and  more  compre 
hensive  story.  Bruce5  suggests  that  there  was  a  widespread 
impulse  to  preserve  in  writing  the  evangelic  memorabilia  that 
stimulated  Luke  to  do  likewise.  His  active  mind  was  seized 
with  the  desire  to  make  a  more  adequate  and  orderly  presenta 
tion  of  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus  while  it  was  still  possible 
to  do  so.  In  doing  this  great  service  he  was  conscious  of  meet 
ing  a  widespread  demand,  the  author's  usual  sense  of  filling  a 
long-felt  want,  that  sometimes  is  true,  though  publishers  can 
not  always  know  it. 

There  was,  therefore,  "extensive  activity  in  the  production 
of  rudimentary  gospels,"  Bruce6  argues.  It  was  a  time  of  lit 
erary  activity  concerning  Jesus.  Great  literature  is  usually 
produced  under  the  incentive  of  some  great  impulse  or  excite 
ment,  like  love,  war,  discovery.  New  ideas  spur  the  mind  to 
fresh  effort.  The  years  at  Ca3sarea  offered  Luke  an  oppor 
tunity  for  new  research  and  for  first-hand  knowledge  that  set 
his  soul  aflame.  Luke,  instead  of  being  deterred  by  the  mul- 

1  Comm.,  p.  2.  2  Plummer,  Comm.,  p.  2. 

3  eicexstooav.  4  xa-njx^?,  1 :  4. 

6  On  Luke  1:1.  •  Ibid. 


tiplicity  of  efforts,  was  the  rather  incited  to  one  more  attempt 
on  a  more  ambitious  scale,  one  that  would  conserve  the  best 
in  all  of  them  and  thus  give  a  richer  and  a  more  exact  portrayal 
of  Christ  than  had  yet  been  drawn.  That  he  accomplished 
this  purpose  is  plain  in  respect  to  Mark's  Gospel,  which  has 
fortunately  survived.  It  seems  true,  also,  of  the  Logia  (Q). 
It  was  all  the  more  true  of  the  others  that  have  perished  pre 
cisely  because  Luke  did  his  work  so  well. 

It  is  certain  that  Luke  is  not  hostile  to  the  Twelve  in  the 
writing  of  his  Gospel.  The  book  itself  refutes  that  idea.1  It 
is  open  to  him  to  improve  upon  the  words  of  others  if  he  can. 
It  is  certain,  also,  that  though  Luke  is  the  friend  and  follower 
of  Paul,  he  is  not  a  narrow  partisan  of  Paul.  He  cannot  in  the 
Acts  be  accused  of  distorting  history  in  the  interest  of  Paul  or 
of  Peter  or  of  promoting  a  reconciliation  between  them.2  In 
spite  of  the  fact  that  Paul  is  Luke's  hero  in  the  Acts,  Ramsay3 
can  say:  "It  is  rare  to  find  a  narrative  so  simple  and  so  little 
forced  as  that  of  Acts.  It  is  a  mere  uncolored  recital  of  the 
important  facts  in  the  briefest  possible  terms."  The  same 
thing  is  true  of  the  Gospel.  Luke  is  a  master  artist  in  his 
grouping  of  the  facts,  but  they  are  facts.  "St.  Luke  remains 
unconvicted  of  the  charge  of  writing  party  pamphlets  under 
the  cover  of  fictitious  history." 

3.  A  Contemporary  of  the  Events,  but  a  Participant  in  None 
Save  Part  of  the  Acts.  In  the  "we"  sections  of  Acts  Luke  was 
an  eye-witness  and  a  fellow-worker.  But  in  the  rest  of  the  Acts 
and  all  of  the  Gospel  he  has  to  rely  upon  others  for  his  informa 
tion.  This  is  the  natural  implication  of  his  language  about  the 
Gospel.  "Eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the  word  have  de 
livered  unto  us"  the  story  of  "the  things  that  have  been  fulfilled 
among  us."  The  "us"  here,  occurring  twice,  is  clearly  not  the 
literary  plural,  which  Paul  sometimes  employs,  but  "  among  us 
Christians,"  "to  us  Christians."  "Christendom  is  the  sphere 
in  which  these  facts  have  had  their  accomplishment."  4  The 
use  of  "delivered"5  shows  that  some  time  has  elapsed  since 
the  events  took  place.  Plummer6  says:  "If  these  things  were 

1  Plummer,  Comm.,  p.  xxxvi. 

2  Moffatt,  Intr.  to  the  Lit.  of  N.  T.,  pp.  301-2. 

3  Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Travelkr,  p.  20. 

4  Plummer,  Comm.,  p.  3. 

*  -jcapiSoaav.     Cf .  TOcp&Soatq  for  tradition.  6  Ibid. 


handed  down  to  Luke,  then  he  was  not  contemporary  with 
them."  Not  in  the  strictest  sense,  to  be  sure,  and  yet,  if  Luke 
was  only  forty  years  old  in  A.  D.  60,  he  was  ten  years  old  in 
A.  D.  30,  old  enough  to  hear  echoes  of  what  was  going  on  in 
Palestine  if  he  was  within  reach.  He  was  more  likely  fifty 
than  forty.  Luke  comes  in  between  the  first  generation  of 
eye-witnesses  and  the  second  generation,  whose  lives  come 
wholly  after  the  great  era  of  the  life  of  Christ  on  earth.  For 
the  life  of  Paul  he  is  both  contemporary  with  all  and  partici 
pant  in  much  of  it. 

But  he  looks  backward  quite  distinctly  upon  the  story  of 
Jesus  "concerning  those  matters  which  have  been  fulfilled 
among  us."  The  perfect  tense1  emphasizes  the  idea  that  the 
story  has  been  preserved  as  well  as  finished.  It  is  not  clear 
what  the  sonorous  verb  means.  Eusebius  takes  it  in  the  sense 
of  "convince,"  as  Paul  does  in  Rom.  14:5;  Col.  4:  12.  But 
Paul  uses  it  of  persons,  not  of  things.  Others  take  the  word 
in  the  sense  of  "believe,"  "surely  believed"  (A.  V.),  following 
Tyndale,  but  that  hardly  seems  suitable.  Others  make  it 
"fully  proved."  Bruce2  suggests  "fulness  of  knowledge,"  but 
that  is  a  bit  strained.  The  natural  way  is  to  take  it  in  the 
sense  of  "fulfil,"  "complete"  as  in  II  Tim.  4:5,  17.3  This  is 
Jerome's  translation  "completes  surd"  Luke  writes  after  the 
close  of  Christ's  earthly  ministry  and  yet  it  is  not  in  the  dim 

If  Luke  is  writing  in  Csesarea,  he  includes  himself  naturally 
among  the  "us."  He  is  in  the  midst  of  the  atmosphere  of  the 
life  of  Jesus,  At  every  turn  he  finds  fresh  reminders  of  word 
and  deed  of  Jesus.  The  Christian  community  in  Judea  still 
recall  the  wonderful  words  of  the  matchless  teacher.4  He  could 
not  be  insensible  to  his  environment.  Though  a  Greek  of  An- 
tioch,  let  us  say,  yet  he  was  now  a  Christian,  and  everything 
that  concerned  Jesus  interested  him.  Through  the  centuries 
since  men  have  made  pilgrimages  to  Palestine  to  get  the  proper 
orientation  for  the  study  of  the  life  of  Christ.  Luke  had  time 
enough  to  gratify  his  eagerness  for  details  and  his  scholarly 
desire  for  accuracy.  He  had  come  to  Christ  from  the  heathen 
fold  and  had  looked  upon  Christianity  as  a  great  moral  and 

v.  2  Cowim.,  p.  458. 


Philology  of  the  Gospels,  p.  14. 


spiritual  revolution.  It  is  difficult  for  a  contemporary  to  get 
the  right  perspective.  But  Luke  is  a  man  of  ability,  culture 
and  wide  sympathy.  He  has  a  large  horizon  and  draws  his 
picture  upon  a  large  canvas.  He  knows  that  he  is  discussing 
the  life  story  of  the  Man  of  the  Ages.  It  is  important  that  he 
be  sure  of  his  facts. 

4.  Talks  with  Eye-witnesses.  —  One  would  feel  sure  that  Luke 
would  make  it  his  business  while  in  Palestine  to  seek  interviews 
with  important  persons  who  could  add  bits  of  color  to  his  nar 
rative  about  Christ,  if  he  had  any  idea  of  writing  the  story  of 
Jesus.  He  would  listen  to  those  talk  who  saw  and  heard  Jesus. 
But  we  are  not  left  to  conjecture.  These  "eye-witnesses"1 
were  primary  authorities  and  spoke  from  personal  experience 
and  knowledge.  They  saw  with  their  own  eyes  and  gave  their 
own  interpretations  of  what  took  place.  People  would  be 
eager  to  tell  what  they  knew  of  this  or  that  incident,  whether 
they  knew  of  Luke's  purpose  or  not.  A  few  questions  would 
draw  out  much  information  which  Luke  would  be  quick  to  jot 
down.  But  the  public  preaching  of  the  word  consisted  largely 
in  the  recital  of  the  great  events  in  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus, 
as  we  can  see  from  the  sermons  of  Peter  and  Paul  in  the  Acts. 
Luke  had  only  to  make  notes  as  he  listened  to  these  "  ministers 
of  the  word,"  2  many  of  whom  were  also  eye-witnesses,  to  add 
to  his  store  of  oral  testimony. 

They  not  only  had  personal  experience,  but  they  had  also 
practical  experience  of  the  power  of  the  preached  word  on 
human  lives.3  Many  of  them  had  followed  Christ  from  the 
start  and  were  thus  able  to  speak  with  authority.  They  knew 
the  outstanding  facts  connected  with  the  ministry  of  Christ 
from  the  beginning.  Some  of  them  may  have  known  the  still 
earlier  details  of  the  childhood,  though  it  is  almost  certain 
that  the  preaching  of  the  time  began  with  the  ministry  of 
Jesus  (Acts  10:  36-43).  Luke  later  (Acts  1  :  1)  explains  that 
his  Gospel  treated  "all  that  Jesus  began  to  do  and  to  teach." 

In  II  Peter  1  :  16  we  have  !ic6xrac  for  the  eager  beholders 
of  the  majestic  glory  on  the  mount  of  transfiguration.  Cf.  eicoirre&ovTeg 
in  I  Pet.  2  :  12. 

2  fciajpikat  TOU  X6You.    It  is  hardly  likely  that  Luke  here  employs  X6yo? 
in  the  Johannine  sense  of  the  personal  Word.    These  "under-rowers"  had 
much  to  tell  that  was  worth  while.    Cf.  Luke  4  :  20;  Acts  13  :  5. 

3  Plummer,  Comm.,  p.  3. 


The  Jews  lay  great  store  by  oral  witness.  Books  were  ex 
pensive  and  scarce  in  spite  of  the  remark  in  Ecclesiastes  about 
the  making  of  so  many  books.  People  had  to  rely  largely  on 
the  memory  for  the  retention  of  knowledge.  The  Jews  them 
selves  developed  a  vast  system  of  oral  law  in  elucidation  of  the 
written  law,  and  finally  came  to  think  more  of  it  than  they  did 
of  the  Mosaic  law.  Westcott  and  A.  Wright  look  to  the  oral 
teaching  as  the  main,  if  not  tjie  only,  source  of  the  gospels. 
In  this  they  are  not  sustained  by  modern  research.  But  we 
must  not  overlook  the  fact  that,  when  Luke  wrote  his  Gospel, 
he  had  easy  access  to  eye-witnesses  whose  testimony  was  of 
inestimable  value.  He  himself  speaks  (Acts  21:16)  of  "one 
Mnason  of  Cyprus,  an  early  disciple,  with  whom  we  should 
lodge."  There  were  many  more.  Philip  and  his  four  daugh 
ters  were  in  Csesarea,  and  had  but  recently  entertained  Paul 
and  his  party  (Acts  21 : 8  f.).  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord, 
and  all  the  elders  met  Paul  and  Luke  in  Jerusalem  (21 : 18). 
Harnack  (Luke  the  Physician,  p.  122)  thinks  that  Luke  did 
not  at  this  time  know  the  Twelve  Apostles.  He  certainly 
knew  Mark  and  his  mother  Mary,  whose  home  was  the  centre 
of  the  Christian  life  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  12 : 12).  It  is  possible 
that  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  was  still  alive.  She  may  have 
lived  in  Jerusalem  with  James,  now  that  he  is  a  firm  believer 
and  leader.  But,  if  Mary  was  no  longer  living,  James  may 
have  had  her  narrative  of  the  great  events  that  she  alone  knew. 
Each  one  would  have  his  own  story  to  tell.  Each  would  sup 
plement  the  other.  The  true  historian  knows  how  to  prize 
and  to  weigh  oral  testimony.  That  Luke  did  not  follow  old 
wives'  fables  and  foolish  legends  is  proven  by  a  comparison  of 
his  books  with  the  apocryphal  lives  of  Jesus. 

5.  Examination  of  Documents. — Luke  expressly  says  that 
"many  have  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a  narrative."  It  is  not 
perfectly  clear  what  Luke  means  by  "draw  up  a  narrative."  l 
The  word  for  "narrative"  "implies  more  than  mere  notes  or 
anecdotes."  2  It  is  a  carrying  through  a  connected  story  to 
the  end  (cf.  Sirach,  6 : 35;  II  Mac.  2 :  32).  Luke  draws  a  dis 
tinction  between  the  oral  testimony  of  eye-witnesses  in  verse  2 
and  the  written  documents  in  verse  I.3  Both  verb  and  sub 
stantive  occur  here  alone  in  the  New  Testament.  The  verb  is 

1  dcvaT<4£<xo0ai  Ziiifriaiv.  3  Plummer,  Comm..  p.  3. 

3  Blass,  Philology  of  the  Gospels,  p.  16. 


a  rare  one  in  Greek  literature.1  In  both  instances  the  notion 
of  repetition  or  practice  is  present.  Plutarch  has  an  elephant 
practising  by  moonlight  from  memory  what  his  keeper  taught 
him.  Irenseus  describes  Ezra  as  restoring  from  memory  the 
words  of  the  prophets.  Blass,2  therefore,  plausibly  argues  that 
Luke's  meaning  must  be  this:  "Since  many  writers  have  under 
taken  to  restore  from  memory  a  narrative  of  the  things  which 
have  come  to  pass  among  us."  The  oral  tradition  was  liable 
to  pass  into  oblivion  unless  it  were  written  down  while  still  a 
living  memory.  This  is  probably  the  true  idea. 

It  may  well  be  that  some  of  the  "many"  themselves  had 
access  to  written  documents.  Luke  uses  a  general  expression. 
But  he  undoubtedly  means  to  affirm  that  he  had  access  to  a 
number  of  written  documents  concerning  the  life  of  Jesus. 
This  statement,  as  already  shown,  effectually  disposes  of  the 
idea  that  our  Gospels  relied  entirely  upon  oral  testimony.  But 
the  next  verse  shows  plainly  that  Luke  employed  oral  testi 
mony,  also.  He  made  use  of  both  kinds  of  testimony,  as  any 
sensible  man  in  his  position  would  do.  He  has  before  him, 
as  he  writes,  some  of  these  narratives  which  have  incited  him 
to  his  task. 

But  it  is  not  enough  to  be  in  possession  of  priceless  historical 
treasures,  absolutely  essential  as  this  fact  is  for  all  historical 
research.  The  true  historian  cannot  and  dare  not  "invent" 
his  facts  save  in  the  etymological  sense  of  that  word.  He  must 
find  his  facts  before  he  writes.  Research  is  the  first  step,  long 
and  patient  gathering  of  the  data.  I  may  be  excused  a  per 
sonal  word  at  this  point.  My  first  book,  The  Life  and  Letters 
of  John  A.  Broadus  (1901),  was  written  after  reading  some 
twenty-five  thousand  letters,  besides  other  biographical  mate 
rial.  Before  anything  else  was  done,  these  letters  had  to  be 
read,  all  of  them.  A  selection  of  all  that  threw  light  upon  the 
life  of  Broadus  was  made  and  placed  in  chronological  order. 
This  was  the  first  step,  but  it  was  not  all.  What  was  the  rela 
tive  value  and  importance  of  this  varied  assortment  of  material  ? 

6.  Sifting  the  Evidence. — We  can  picture  Luke  in  his  study 
with  his  papers  piled  around  him,  papyrus  rolls  and  scraps  at 

1  Plutarch  (De  Soil  Animal  xii),  Irenseus  (III,  21 :  2),  and  v.  1  in  Eccles. 
2 : 20. 

2  Phil  of  the  Gospels,  p.  15.    The  Latin  and  English  versions  vary  greatly 
in  the  translation  of  this  word. 


every  turn.  But  he  is  not  yet  ready  to  write  his  book.  He 
himself  tells  what  his  next  step  was.  He  only  began  to  write 
after  "having  traced  the  course  of  all  things  accurately  from 
the  first."  1  Eusebius2  takes  "all"  as  masculine,  a  reference 
to  the  eye-witnesses  and  ministers.  Epiphanius3  expressly  says 
that  Luke  followed  closely  the  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of 
the  word.  This  is  the  literal  meaning  of  the  verb,  following 
closely  by  one's  side.  Certainly  Luke  was  not  a  constant  fol 
lower  of  the  Twelve  from  the  beginning  or  of  other  eye-witnesses 
of  Christ,  though  he  probably  knew  some  of  them.  Besides, 
this  literal  sense  of  this  compound  verb  occurs  nowhere  else  in 
the  New  Testament.  "But  Polybius  and  other  Hellenistic 
authors  employ  the  verb  in  the  sense  of  studying,  and  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  Luke's  use  is  the  same."  4  Luke  means 
that  he  had  instituted  a  process  of  research  in  his  inquiries  con 
cerning  the  life  of  Christ  that  covered  "all  things."  It  was, 
therefore,  a  thorough  and  careful  investigation  that  began  at 
the  beginning,  "from  the  first,"5  meaning  with  the  birth  of 
John  the  Baptist,  as  the  sequel  shows.  "He  has  begun  at  the 
beginning,  and  he  has  investigated  everything."  6  Bruce  7 
thinks  that  Luke  made  this  research  "long  antecedent  to  the 
formation  of  his  plan."  The  tense  of  the  verb  is  perfect  and 
naturally  bears  that  meaning,  if  by  "plan"  is  meant  the  out 
line  of  the  Gospel,  not  the  purpose  to  write  it.  The  idea  of 
Luke  seems  to  be  that,  having  decided  to  write  another  and  a 
fuller  narrative  than  those  in  existence,  he  first  made  an  inves 
tigation  of  all  the  available  material  that  he  could  lay  his  hands 

But  he  adds  one  other  word8  that  is  quite  pertinent.  He 
has  done  it  "accurately."  There  is  no  idle  boast  in  these  three 
qualifications  for  his  task.9  In  a  straightforward  way  Luke 
reveals  his  literary  method.  He  has  aimed  at  full  research 
and  accurate  use  of  his  material.  He  has  not  dumped  it  all 
out  in  anecdotal  form  with  no  appraisement  of  its  value.  He 

SvtoOsv  iraacv  dtxpcpwq.     Cf.  Demosthenes,  De  Corona,  ch. 
LIII,  344  (p.  285)  icapTjxoXouOTjxiTa,  rot?  -jcpdcyixaatv  l£  dcpxTJ?. 
2  III,  24,  15.    So  the  Syrian  Translation.       3  Ag.  Her.,  51,  7. 
4  Blass,  Philology  of  the  Gospels,  p.  18. 
6  a  principio,  the  Vulgate  has  it. 

6  Plummer,  Comrn.,  p.  4.  7  Comrn.,  p.  459. 

8  dxpipd><;.  •  Plummer,  Comm.,  p.  4. 


has  weighed  the  worth  of  the  information  before  he  told  it. 
He  has  tried  to  tell  it  as  it  happened.  Accurate  writing  can 
only  follow  accurate  investigation.  In  a  word,  Luke  has  sifted 
the  evidence  and  has  given  us  the  wheat,  not  the  chaff.  This 
is  a  necessary  task  for  the  historian  if  he  is  to  be  more  than  a 
mere  romancer..  Even  Harnack,1  though  championing  the 
Lukan  authorship  of  Gospel  and  Acts,  is  still  skeptical  about 
his  use  of  his  authorities.  "He  certainly  believes  himself  to 
be  an  historian  (see  the  prologue)  and  so  he  is;  but  his  powers 
are  limited,  for  he  adopts  an  attitude  toward  his  authorities 
which  is  as  distinctly  uncritical  as  that  which  he  adopts  towards 
his  own  experiences,  if  these  admit  of  a  miraculous  interpreta 
tion."  Harnack  here  charges  Luke  with  giving  a  miraculous 
coloring  to  natural  occurrences,  when  he  was  probably  less  dis 
posed  to  do  that  than  any  man  of  his  day.  Luke  distinctly 
claims  accurate  research.  It  is  quite  compatible2  with  this 
historical  research  and  love  for  the  truth  that  one  should  have 
a  sense  of  decorum  and  reverence.  But  Luke  is  not  the  man 
to  be  charged  with  mere  credulity  without  proof. 

Luke  does  not  say  that  the  previous  writers  were  not  accu 
rate.  He  only  claims  that  he  has  covered  the  whole  field  and 
has  done  it  in  harmony  with  the  facts  as  he  could  ascertain 
them  after  careful  investigation.  "And,  in  spite  of  the  sever 
est  scrutiny,  his  accuracy  can  very  rarely  be  impugned." ; 
And  the  results  of  modern  research  confirm  the  justice  of 
Luke's  claim  wherever  his  works  can  be  tested  by  new  dis 
coveries.  This  will  be  shown  to  be  true  in  detail  in  succeeding 
chapters  in  a  most  astonishing  degree. 

Ruskin4  has  a  good  word  about  misjudging  a  writer:  "Be 
sure  that  you  go  to  the  author  to  get  at  his  meaning,  not  to 
find  yours  and  to  judge  it  afterwards,  if  you  think  yourself 
qualified  to  do  so;  but  ascertain  it  first.  And  be  sure,  also,  if 
the  author  is  worth  anything,  that  you  will  not  get  at  his 
meaning  all  at  once;  nay,  that  at  his  whole  meaning  you  will 
not  for  a  long  time  arrive  in  any  wise."  Luke,  like  any  other 
writer,  is  entitled  to  be  credited  with  his  own  conception  of 
his  task.  He  disclaims  being  a  slipshod  writer  in  the  use  of 
his  material.  He  has  the  Greek  love  for  clarity  and  for  truth. 
He  has  the  physician's  skill  in  diagnosis  that  will  stand  him  in 

1  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  123.  2  Bruce,  Comm.,  p.  460. 

8  Plummer,  Comm.,  p.  4.  4  Sesame  and  Lilies,  p.  15. 


good  atead  as  he  dissects  the  data  before  him.  He  has  traced 
the  story  of  Jesus  from  its  origin  with  historical  insight  and 
balanced  judgment.  He  is  already  in  possession  of  the  evi 
dence  before  he  begins  to  write,  as  the  perfect  tense  shows. 
He  does  not  jot  down  scraps  of  information  in  a  haphazard 
way  as  he  gets  hold  of  it.  "Luke  claims  to  have  studied  and 
comprehended  every  event  in  its  origin  and  development."  l 
He  has  gotten  ready  to  write  before  he  begins  to  write. 

7.  Orderly  Arrangement. — "To  write  unto  thee  in  order/' 
Luke  declared  to  be  his  purpose.  What  kind  of  "order"  2  is 
it  ?  He  does  not  say  that  it  is  chronological  order,  though  one 
naturally  thinks  of  that.  Papias3  states  that  Mark's  Gospel 
was  not  "in  order,"  but  he  employs  a  different  word,4  which 
suggests  military  order.  Luke's  word  occurs  in  Acts  11:4  con 
cerning  Peter's  discourse  in  Jerusalem  about  the  events  in 
Csesarea  which  Blass5  interprets  to  be  a  full  recital  without 
important  omissions,  a  complete  series  rather  than  chrono 
logical  sequence.  Ramsay6  takes  it  to  be  "a  rational  order, 
making  things  comprehensible,  omitting  nothing  that  is  essen 
tial  for  full  and  proper  understanding."  Such  an  order  would 
be  chronological  in  its  main  features.  That  is  true  of  the 
great  turning  points  in  the  Gospel,  most  assuredly.  As  a  mat 
ter  of  fact,  both  Luke  and  Matthew  follow  the  general  order 
of  Mark's  Gospel.  Matthew  departs  from  it  mainly  in  the 
first  part  and  Luke  in  the  last  part,  where  each  introduces  new 
material  on  a  large  scale.  Plummer7  thinks  that  Luke  gen 
erally  aims  at  chronological  order  and  on  the  whole  attains  it 
without,  however,  slavishly  following  chronology  in  every  de 
tail.  In  the  Acts  the  chronological  order  is  plain,  as  a  rule. 
But  there  is  no  proof  that  Luke  deliberately  formed  a  scheme 
of  theological  development  in  the  life  of  Christ  and  then 
selected  his  material  to  illustrate  it.8  Luke  sometimes  prefers 
another  order  to  the  chronological,  but  it  is  always  a  systematic 
treatment  and  not  a  mere  hotch-potch. 

He  has  a  proper  proportion,  also,  in  his  use  of  his  material, 

1  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  11. 

2  xaOe^g.     Peculiar  to  Luke  in  the  N.  T. 

3  Eus.,  Hist.  EccL,  3 :  39, 151.  4  T^SC. 

5  Philology  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  18  f . 

6  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  14, 

7  Comm.,  p.  xxxvii.  8  Ibid. 


and  writes  the  story  with  due  regard  to  scale  and  space.1  Each 
event  receives  treatment  according  to  its  importance  in  rela 
tion  to  the  whole.  "The  historian  who  is  to  give  a  brief  his 
tory  of  a  great  period  need  not  reproduce  on  a  reduced  uniform 
scale  all  the  facts  which  he  would  mention  in  a  long  history, 
like  a  picture  reduced  by  a  photographic  process."  2  He  must 
omit  a  great  deal,  he  must  seize  the  critical  points,  he  must 
interpret  the  great  personalities,  he  must  make  the  whole 
vivid,  and  give  a  true  perspective.  The  outstanding  feature 
of  Luke's  Gospel  is  its  completeness.  It  charms  one  with  its 
sheer  beauty  and  power. 

There  is  no  discounting  the  artistic  skill  of  Luke  in  his  lit 
erary  workmanship.  He  must  be  attacked  on  some  other 
ground.  But  there  is  no  trace  of  literary  affectation  or  arti 
ficial  whimsicalities.  Lieutenant-Colonel  G.  Mackinlay3  makes 
out  an  interesting  case  for  his  theory  that  Luke  is  fond  of 
"triplications"  in  his  Gospel.  But  one  wonders  if  Luke  made 
conscious  use  of  such  a  literary  device.  He  is  writing  a  serious 
history,  not  mere  memoirs,  not  a  biographical  puzzle.  He  is 
full  of  the  historic  spirit  and  sets  forth  the  grand  development 
of  the  life  of  Christ  toward  the  great  Tragedy  and  the  grand 
victory  of  the  Resurrection. 

Luke's  Gospel  is  the  nearest  approach  to  a  biography4  that 
we  have,  since  he  begins  with  the  birth  and  carries  on,  at  inter 
vals,  to  the  grand  close.  It  is  not  only  the  most  comprehen 
sive,  but  it  is  also  the  longest  of  the  gospels.  If  we  think  of 
the  whole  course  of  Christian  history  in  the  Gospel  and  Acts 
the  work  is  chronological.5  The  figures  are  drawn  with  life 
like  power  and  the  greatest  drama  of  human  history  is  set  forth 
with  supreme  literary  skill.  The  book  is  a  scholar's  attempt 
to  picture  and  to  interpret  the  life  of  Christ  for  the  world  at 
large.  Theophilus  is  the  representative  of  this  outside  world 
beyond  Palestine.  Luke  has  supreme  equipment  for  such  an 
undertaking  by  birth,  education  and  diligence.  As  a  scien 
tific  physician  he  learned  to  make  generalizations  from  speci 
mens.  So  as  the  historian  he  knows  how  to  make  the  miracles 
and  parables  of  Jesus  picture  the  Great  Physician  and  Teacher. 

1  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Barn  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  14. 

2  Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  7. 

3  The  Literary  Marvels  of  St.  Luke  (1919). 

4  Plummer,  Comm.,  p.  xli.  B  Chase,  Credibility  of  the  Acts,  p.  17. 


8.  Reliable  Results.  —  Luke  is  able  to  assure  Theophilus,  who 
had  already  received  technical  instruction1  in  the  matters  per 
taining  to  the  life  of  Christ,  and  whose  deep  interest  in  the 
subject  can  be  assumed,  that  he  can  feel  confident  concerning 
"the  certainty"  of  the  new  narrative.  Luke  wrote  pointedly 
"that  thou  mightest  know  the  certainty  concerning  the  things 
wherein  thou  wast  instructed."  Theophilus  had  received  many 
details2  about  the  various  events  which  the  ministers  of  the 
word  had  related  to  Luke.3  Now  he  will  have  the  same  full 
knowledge4  that  the  Christians  in  Judea  have  enjoyed,  with 
the  advantage  that  he  will  have  it  in  a  comprehensive  and 
unified  treatise  that  will  preserve  in  written  form  much  that 
would  else  be  perishable.5  Luke  may  not  have  perceived  what 
a  treasure  for  mankind  he  had  prepared,  but  he  wishes  The 
ophilus  to  understand  "that  the  faith  which  he  has  embraced 
has  an  impregnable  historical  foundation."  6 

There  is  a  solemn  emphasis  in  the  conclusion  of  Luke's  pref 
ace.  Harnack  7  admits,  as  we  have  seen,  that  Luke  "  certainly 
believes  himself  to  be  an  historian."  Ramsay8  has  a  luminous 
chapter  on  "Luke's  History:  What  it  professes  to  be"  in  his 
Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?  He  shows  that  it  is  distinctly 
uncritical  to  accept  the  Gospel  and  Acts  "as  the  work  of  the 
real  St.  Luke,  the  follower  and  disciple  and  physician  and  inti 
mate  friend  of  Paul,"  and  then  "to  write  about  the  inadequacy 
of  his  authorities,  the  incompleteness  of  his  information,  the 
puzzling  variation  in  the  scale  and  character  of  his  narrative 
according  as  he  had  good  or  inferior  authorities  to  trust  to."  9 
Certainly  Luke  would  repudiate  that  estimate  of  his  work. 
"He  claims  to  state  throughout  what  is  perfectly  trustworthy. 
It  may  be  allowed,  consistently,  that  his  information  was  not 
everywhere  agreeably  good  and  complete."  10  Ramsay11  presses 
the  argument  of  Luke  to  a  conclusion:  "Either  an  author  who 

This  verb  is  used  in  21:21  of  wrong  information,  but 
that  is  not  the  essential  idea,  as  Blass  (Philology  of  the  Gospels,  p.  20)  seems 
to  think.  The  verb  XOCTIQX&O  means  to  sound  down  or  din  into  the  ears. 

2  X6Yoi  in  verse  4,  not  xpiYf-aTa  of  verse  1. 

3  Plummer,  Comm.,  p.  5. 

4!iuyv(p<;.     Additional  (ext-)  knowledge. 

6  Blass,  Philology  of  the  Gospels,  p.  20. 

6  Plummer,  Comm.,  p.  5.  7  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  123. 

8  Pp.  3-21.  9  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem?  p.  16. 

«>Ibid,  "Ibid.,  p.  18. 


begins  with  a  declaration  such  as  that  (in  his  preface)  had 
mixed  freely  with  many  of  the  eye-witnesses  and  actors  in  the 
events  which  he  proceeds  to  record,  or  he  is  a  thorough  impos 
tor,  who  consciously  and  deliberately  aims  at  producing  belief 
in  his  exceptional  qualifications  in  order  to  gain  credit  for  his 
History."  "If  the  author  was  an  impostor,  his  work  remains 
one  of  the  most  incomprehensible  and  unintelligible  facts  in 
literary  history." 

Luke  has  made  his  bold  claim.  It  has  been  viciously  at 
tacked  by  various  critics.  Nothing  but  "the  demonstration  of 
hard  facts"  will  clear  the  issue.  Who  is  right,  Luke  or  his 
modern  critics?  Enough  has  been  discovered  to  test  Luke's 
accuracy  in  crucial  and  important  points,  in  the  very  points 
where  he  has  been  attacked.  Meanwhile,  we  shall  assume  that 
Luke  has  made  a  careful  use  of  his  material  and  is  entitled  to 
make  his  confident  claim  to  Theophilus.  He  aims  to  give  a 
record  of  the  truth  in  both  Gospel  and  Acts.1 

9.  The  Stamp  of  Luke's  Personality. — Luke  was  no  mere 
chronicler  of  dry  details.  He  was  not  a  scrap-book  historian 
who  simply  spliced  together  documents.  He  used  literary 
sources  as  every  real  historian  must.  They  influenced  his 
style,  in  certain  parts  more  than  in  others,  but  he  put  his  own 
stamp  upon  all  the  material  that  he  incorporated.  Luke,  un 
like  Shakespeare,  reveals  his  personality  in  the  Gospel  and  the 
Acts.  "Carlyle  could  not  write  another  man's  biography 
without  writing  his  autobiography  between  the  lines.  No 
more  could  Luke."  2  Hence  we  can  rejoice  all  the  more  that 
Luke  felt  impelled  ("it  seemed  good  to  me  also")  to  write. 
"It  was  such  a  book  as  a  lover  of  men  could  write  for  a  lover 
of  God."  3  But  it  is  the  self-revelation  of  a  soul  that  was 
humble  and  Christ-like.  "There  are  times  when  one  wishes 
that  he  had  never  read  the  New  Testament  Scriptures — that 
he  might  some  day  open  the  Gospel  according  to  Luke,  and  the 
most  beautiful  book  in  the  world  might  come  upon  his  soul 
like  sunrise."  4 

He  was  called  a  painter  by  the  ancients.  Plummer5  traces 
it  to  the  sixth  century  to  Theodorus  Lector,  reader  in  the 
Church  in  Constantinople.  He  states  that  the  Empress 

1  Rackham,  Acts,  p.  xxxvii. 

2  Hayes,  The  Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts,  p.  265. 

4  Ian  Maclaren.  6  Comm.,  p.  xxii. 


Eudoxia  found  at  Jerusalem  a  picture  of  Mary  the  mother  of 
Jesus,  painted  by  Luke.  There  is,  at  least,  this  much  of  truth 
in  the  legend.  Luke  has  exerted  a  profound  influence  upon 
Christian  art  by  his  lifelike  portrayals  of  character  in  the 
Gospel  and  the  Acts.  He  painted  with  his  pen,  if  not  with 
his  brush.  His  pictures  are  drawn  to  the  life  and  glow  with 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  all  the  early  writers  assign  the 
ox  or  calf  to  Luke,  though  differing  greatly  concerning  the 
other  three  symbolical  figures  for  the  other  Gospels  (the  man, 
the  lion,  the  eagle).  It  is  probable  that  Luke's  Gospel  was 
so  called1  because  it  is  the  Gospel  of  propitiation,  of  sacrifice. 
The  priesthood  of  Christ  comes  to  the  fore  in  the  Gospel  of 
Luke  and  Jesus  is  pictured  with  the  priestly  attributes  of  sym 
pathy,  compassion  and  mercy.2 

The  most  astonishing  trait  in  Luke's  style  is  his  versatility. 
He  is  not  only  the  most  versatile  writer  in  the  New  Testament, 
but  one  of  the  most  versatile  of  all  historians.  "He  can  be 
as  Hebraistic  as  the  Septuagint,  and  as  far  from  Hebraisms  as 
Plutarch."  3  Certainly  he  is  Hebraistic  because  of  his  Ara 
maic  sources  in  Luke  1  and  2  and  Acts  1-5,  but  it  is  at  least 
open  to  one  to  think  "that  he  has  here  allowed  his  style  to  be 
Hebraistic  because  he  felt  that  such  a  style  was  appropriate 
to  his  subject-matter."  4  The  contrast  is  sharpest  in  Luke 
1  :  1-4  and  the  rest  of  chapter  1  and  all  of  2,  but  we  see  it  also 
in  the  Acts.  Moffatt5  sees  "the  literary  finish  of  the  third 
Gospel"  in  the  careful  rhythm  of  the  prologue,  his  versatility 
in  using  the  "archaic  semi-Biblical  style"  and  in  "leaving  the 
rough  translation  of  an  Aramaic  source  practically  unchanged 
for  the  sake  of  effect."  But  the  unity  of  Luke's  style  is  pre 
served  throughout  both  Gospel  and  Acts  in  his  characteristic 
freedom  of  expression  and  in  the  range  of  his  vocabulary.6 
Luke  exhibits  the  science  of  the  trained  student  and  the  skill 
of  the  artist  in  giving  "an  harmonious  picture"  7  by  the  use  of 
varied  material.  "St.  Luke  exhibits  constant  proof  of  his 
Greek  origin  in  the  substitution  of  more  cultured  terms  for  the 

2Luckock,  Special  Characteristics  of  the  Four  Gospels,  pp.  166-181. 
3  Plummer,  Comm.,  p.  xlix.  4  Ibid. 

5  Intr.  to  the  Lit.  of  the  N.  T.,  p.  278.  6  Ibid.,  p.  279. 

7  Milligan,  N.  T.  Documents,  p.  151. 


colloquialisms  of  the  other  synoptists,  while  his  treatment  of 
Q  is  marked  by  various  stylistic  alterations."  1  In  a  number  of 
passages  in  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  "the  phraseology  seems 
to  be  purposely  varied  for  no  other  reason  than  that  of  impart 
ing  a  certain  literary  elegance  to  the  narrative."  2  Luke  em 
ploys  some  750  words  in  the  Gospel  and  Acts  not  found  else 
where  in  the  New  Testament.  Some  of  these  are  due  to  the 
medical  terminology  of  Luke  and  some  to  the  nautical  terms 
in  Acts  27.  A  few  occur  nowhere  else,  so  far  as  known.  Nor- 
den3  and  Blass4  see  Atticistic  influence  in  Luke's  style,  but  this 
is  not  necessary.  Certainly  he  has  a  fine  command  of  the 
literary  Koine  as  well  as  of  the  vernacular.5  He  is  fluent,  but 
not  prolix.  His  style  reveals  the  same  finish  that  we  saw  in 
his  research. 

Hayes6  describes  Luke  as  a  musician  because  he  is  the  first 
great  Christian  hymnologist.  He  has  preserved  the  psalms  of 
praise  from  Elizabeth,  Mary,  Zacharias,  the  angels  and  Simeon. 
We  do  not  have  to  think  that  Luke  composed  these  noble 
songs  of  praise  and  prayer.  But  he  alone  has  preserved  them 
because  he  had  a  soul  for  music  and  for  poetry. 

Carpenter7  has  a  chapter  on  "S.  Luke  the  Artist."  By  this 
expression  he  means  that  he  was  "a  master  of  style."  Style 
is  difficult  of  definition.  Style  is  the  man,  to  be  sure,  but 
style  varies  with  the  subject,  and  style  varies  with  one's  age. 
Stalker  says  that  style  is  shaped  by  full  knowledge  of  the  sub 
ject.  Certainly  Luke's  "supreme  delineation  of  the  Saviour 
of  the  world"  rests  primarily  on  fulness  of  knowledge  on  the 
part  of  the  man  of  culture  whose  heart  is  loyal  to  Jesus  as 
Lord.  There  are  abundant  proofs  of  Luke's  artistic  skill. 
He  has  touches  that  would  please  cultured  Gentiles  like  "the 
good  and  honest  heart"  in  8:15.8  Carpenter9  suggests  that 
Luke's  fondness  for  "table-talk"  (Luke  7:36f.;  11:37!.; 
14 : 1  f .)  may  be  due  to  his  knowledge  of  the  symposia  of  Greek 

1  Ibid.,  p.  149.  2  Milligan,  N.  T.  Documents. 

3  Kunstprosa,  II,  pp.  485  ff . 

4  Die  Rhythmen  der  asianischen  und  romischen  Kunstprosa,  p.  42. 

5  Robertson,  Grammar  of  the  Greek  N.  T.,  p.  122. 

6  Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts,  pp.  188  f. 

7  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  pp.  189-202. 

8  xap8(<jc  xaXfi  xal  dcfa6f).     Plato  and  other  Greek  writers  use  xaXbq 
as  the  equivalent  of  "gentleman."    Carpenter,  op.  cit.,  p.  190. 

p.  191. 


literature.  Luke  knows  how  to  make  a  cumulative  effect  by 
contrast  as  in  parables  in  rapid  succession  in  chapters  14-18. 
Carpenter1  shows  that  Luke  is  "a  master  of  tragic  irony."  He 
knows  how  to  make  the  climax  tell  by  saying  just  enough  and 
no  more.  The  intellectual  surprise  is  complete  and  abiding. 
The  story  of  the  two  disciples  going  to  Emmaus  in  Luke  24 
is  the  most  beautiful  story  in  all  the  world.  It  is  told  with 
consummate  skill.  Luke  can  depict  a  situation  with  supreme 

As  a  painter  of  short  portraits  Luke  also  excels.  He  has 
drawn  the  pictures  of  Jesus,  Peter  and  Paul  on  large  canvas 
with  the  master's  hand.  Luke  has  made  his  story  vivid  both 
in  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  by  the  use  of  the  power  of  person 
ality.  He  understood  the  true  principle  of  dealing  with  so 
vast  a  subject.  He  found  the  secret  in  personality.2  "His 
short  pen  pictures  of  Zacharias,  the  Virgin  Mother,  Martha 
and  Mary,  Zacchseus,  and  the  repentant  robber  are  masterly."  3 

But,  scholar  as  Luke  is,  he  is  also  a  mystic  of  the  true  kind. 
"  Strange  and  unexpected  touches  occur  in  Luke's  narrative, 
corresponding  to  the  astonishing  and  inexplicable  psychological 
experiences  of  ordinary  life."  4  The  proofs  are  many.  "They 
yet  believed  not  for  joy"  (Luke  24:41).  "What  a  natural 
touch  that  was !  They  believed  it,  and  yet  it  was  too  good  to 
be  true."5  Carpenter6  devotes  a  whole  chapter  to  "S.  Luke 
the  Psychologist."  It  is  not  only  fine  workmanship  that  Luke 
gives  us.  He  exhibits  insight  into  human  nature.  He  knows 
also  the  ways  of  God's  Spirit  with  man.  Carpenter7  quotes  a 
theologian  who  said  to  him  that  Luke  was  the  Evangelist  that 
he  should  like  most  to  meet.  "S.  John  was  a  saint,  but  I 
think  I  know  the  kind  of  thing  that  he  would  say  to  me.  But 
S.  Luke  is  different.  He  was  not  a  saint.  He  was  a  psycholo 
gist.  I  should  like  to  meet  him."  Loisy8  finds  the  chief  charm 
of  Luke  in  "a  certain  psychological  note,  a  profound  sense  of 
the  things  of  the  soul."  So  Luke  is  a  psychologist  among  the 
saints  for  the  benefit  of  the  saints. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  194.  2  Rackham,  Acts,  p.  xl. 

3  Carpenter,  Christianity  according  to  S.  Luke,  p.  195. 

4  Hayes,  Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts,  p.  225. 

5  Ibid.  6  Op.  cit.,  pp.  177-188. 

7  Op.  cit.,  p.  177. 

8  Les  fivangiks  Synoptiques,  I,  p.  260. 


He  is  certainly  a  lover  of  mankind  who  fell  in  love  with 
Jesus.  "From  being  interested  in  the  singular  case  of  one 
Paul,  a  travelling  sophist,  whose  restless  zeal  begins  to  play 
havoc  with  the  constitution,  he  passed  to  the  consideration  of 
'one  Jesus,  who  was  dead,  whom  Paul  affirmed  to  be  alive' 
(Acts  25 : 19)."  l  He  had  the  devotion  to  Jesus  that  Plutarch 
calls  pietas,  when  a  biographer  loves  his  subject.  Luke  was 
not  a  formal  theologian,  but  he  had  the  sense  of  mystery  in 
the  presence  of  Christ's  overwhelming  personality.  Chester 
ton2  says:  "Christ  had  even  a  literary  style  of  his  own,  not  to 
be  found,  I  think,  elsewhere;  it  consists  in  an  almost  furious 
use  of  the  a  fortiori.  His  'how  much  more'  is  piled  one  upon 
another  like  castle  upon  castle  in  the  clouds."  Carpenter3 
notes  that  in  the  use  of  this  figure  Luke's  Gospel  is  in  affinity 
with  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

Carpenter4  observes  also  how  Luke  understood  the  loneliness 
of  Jesus.  "One  of  the  penalties  of  greatness  is  loneliness. 
The  great  artist  is,  perhaps,  never  understood  by  his  contem 
poraries.  The  consummate  Artist  has  twelve  pupils,  but  they 
do  not  understand  him.  And  the  Evangelist,  himself  an  artist, 
has  not  failed  to  indicate  this  in  his  picture.  One  of  the  chief 
impressions  taken  from  the  Gospel  is  that  Our  Lord  lived 
alone."  As  one  instance,  note  that  "  it  came  to  pass  as  he  was 
praying  by  himself"  (Luke  9 : 18).  Carpenter5  does  not  claim 
that  Luke  "understood  all  the  pathos  and  the  glory  of  Our 
Lord's  life,  that  he  was  fully  sensitive  to  the  whole  wonder  of 
its  sweetness  and  its  tragedy  and  its  triumphs,"  but  in  Luke 
we  learn  how  Jesus  "experienced  in  the  days  of  His  flesh  some 
thing  of  that  which  may  be  called,  perhaps  unworthily  and 
foolishly,  but  not  altogether  inexcusably,  the  loneliness  of 
God."  6  The  humanity  of  Jesus  in  Luke  is  not  the  deity  of 
humanity  so  much  as  the  humanity  of  deity. 

1  Carpenter,  Op.  dt.}  p.  178.  2  Orthodoxy,  p.  269. 

3  Op.  tit.,  p.  184.  4  Ibid.,  p.  186. 

*  Op.  at.,  p.  187.  •Ibid.,  p.  188. 


"Even  as  they  delivered  them  unto  us"  (Luke  1:2). 

Luke  tells  us  frankly  that  he  used  sources  of  information  in 
writing  his  Gospel  which  were  of  two  kinds,  oral  and  written. 
It  is  possible  to  tell  in  a  broad  way  some  of  these  sources  and 
how  he  used  them. 

1.  Assimilation  rather  than  Quotation. — This  was  the  method 
of  the  ancients.  It  is  a  fine  exercise  to  read  First  Maccabees 
in  the  translation  Greek  in  which  we  have  it,  an  evident  trans 
lation  from  a  Hebrew  or  Aramaic  original,  and  then  turn  to 
the  corresponding  passage  of  the  Antiquities  of  Josephus  where 
the  same  ground  is  covered  as  in  the  story  of  Judas  Macca 
beus.  It  is  perfectly  manifest  that  Josephus  has  followed  the 
narrative  of  First  Maccabees.  He  has  written  his  account  in 
flowing,  idiomatic  Greek  of  the  literary  Koine,  at  times  really 
Atticistic  in  conscious  imitation  of  the  Attic  literary  models. 
He  has  avoided  the  frequent  Hebraisms  in  First  Maccabees, 
but  has  used  the  material  freely  and  faithfully,  without  any 
mention  of  his  source.  That  is  his  usual  practice.  Occasion 
ally  Josephus  does  allude  to  some  of  the  writers  whom  he  con 
sulted,  but  there  is  little  formal  quotation.  Josephus  did  not 
consider  himself  a  copyist,  but  a  historian,  and  used  his  data 
with  freedom. 

Luke  employed  the  literary  devices  of  men  of  his  age.  "In 
using  his  materials  Luke's  methods  are  in  the  main  those  of 
other  writers  of  the  same  period.  They  are  quite  unlike  those 
of  modern  writers.  A  writer  of  the  present  day  seeks  to  tell 
his  story  in  his  own  words  and  in  his  own  way,  giving  refer 
ences  to,  and,  if  necessary,  quotations  from,  his  sources,  but 
carefully  avoiding  all  confusion  between  traditional  fact  and 
critical  inference,  and  certainly  never  altering  the  direct  state 
ment  of  the  earlier  document  without  expressly  mentioning 
the  fact.  The  method  of  antiquity  was,  as  a  rule,  almost  the 
reverse.  The  author  of  a  book  based  on  earlier  materials 



strung  together  a  series  of  extracts  into  a  more  or  less  coherent 
whole,  giving  no  indication  of  his  sources,  and  modifying  them 
freely  in  order  to  harmonize  them."  In  this  paragraph  Lake1 
has  given  a  fair  statement  of  ancient  usage.  There  was  no 
idea  of  plagiarizing  in  failing  to  give  credit.  It  was  simply  a 
different  literary  habit.  Lake  thinks  that  it  is  "obviously 
inferior  to  modern  procedure,"  but  he  agrees  that  Luke  used 
it  well.  That  is  putting  it  mildly  when  critics  treat  the  Gos 
pel  as  a  work  of  consummate  literary  skill.  And  yet  Luke 
does  make  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament,  though  nothing 
like  so  frequently  or  so  formally  as  Matthew's  Gospel.  There 
were  regular  formulas  for  scriptural  quotations,  but  these  were 
not  always  employed.  The  early  Christian  writers,  as  J.  Ren- 
del  Harris2  shows,  were  fond  of  quoting  Testimonia  or  strings 
of  quotations  like  what  Paul  has  in  Romans  3. 

And  yet  Luke  was  not  a  slavish  copyist.  The  stamp  of  his 
own  personality  is  on  all  his  work.  Sanday3  has  some  wise  and 
true  words  on  the  folly  of  complaining  at  the  Gospels  for  free 
dom  in  the  use  of  their  sources:  "The  Evangelists  thought  of 
themselves  not  merely  as  copyists  but  as  historians.  They  are 
not  unconscious  of  a  certain  dignity  in  their  calling.  They  are 
something  more  than  scribes  tied  down  to  the  text  which  they 
have  before  them.  They  considered  themselves  entitled  to 
reproduce  it  freely  and  not  slavishly.  They  do  not  hesitate  to 
tell  the  story  over  again  in  their  own  words."  Luke  does  not 
hesitate  to  use  what  others  have  written,  if  it  suits  his  purpose, 
but  he  does  not  confine  himself  to  any  one  source.  He  is  writ 
ing  his  own  book.  His  Gospel  is  more  elaborate  than  the  other 
Gospels.  "Accordingly,  there  is  perhaps  in  his  case  a  little 
more  of  the  blending  or  fusion  of  different  authorities.  He  has 
a  somewhat  higher  ambition  in  the  matter  of  style.  In  a 
word,  he  approximates  rather  more  nearly  to  the  ancient  sec 
ular  historian."  4  "  It  was  very  much  their  (secular  historians') 
ideals  which  guided  his  hand." 5  But,  with  all  the  freedom  in 
the  use  of  their  sources,  it  is  amazing  how  much  alike  the  pic 
ture  of  Jesus  is  in  all  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  "Verse  after  verse, 
saying  after  saying,  might  be  quoted  to  you  from  the  three 

1  Art.  "Luke,"  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Church,  pp.  771  f. 

2  Various  articles  in  The  Expositor 

3  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  p.  12. 

4  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  p.  13.  6  Ibid.,  p.  14. 


Synoptic  Gospels,  and,  unless  you  happened  to  have  special 
knowledge  or  had  given  special  attention  to  such  matters,  you 
would  be  unable  to  say  to  which  Gospel  they  really  belonged." l 

Sanday2  reminds  us  that  the  physical  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  quoting  books  played  a  large  part  in  their  literary  method. 
The  ancients  used  tables  for  eating,  not  for  writing,  and  for 
paying  out  money.  They  had  desks,  "but  they  were  not  like 
our  desks,  on  a  writing-table.  They  were  quite  small,  like  the 
reading-desks  that  we  attach  to  the  arm  of  an  armchair.  As 
a  rule  they  are  affixed  to  a  raised  stand,  which  is  independent 
of  other  furniture."  One  can  easily  see  that  the  roll  was  not 
a  convenient  form  for  a  book  or  for  such  a  little  desk.  The 
pictures  of  early  writers,  as  of  Virgil,3  represent  one  as  sitting 
with  the  open  roll  on  his  knees  and  the  desk  at  his  side.  The 
ancient  writer  had  great  difficulty  in  keeping  one  roll  open 
from  which  he  was  copying,  and  the  other  open  on  which  he 
was  writing.  There  would  be  the  constant  tendency  to  trust 
one's  memory,  as  in  oral  transmission,  though  the  habits  of 
writers  would  vary. 

Luke's  habit  was  to  give  a  series  of  separate  pictures  with 
local  color.  He  individualized  the  separate  incidents  and  gave 
"editorial  notes,"  as  A.  Wright  calls  them,  that  gave  the  fin 
ishing  touches  to  the  story. 

We  must  remember,  moreover,  that  we  do  not  know  all  the 
sources  that  Luke  employed  nor  his  precise  method  in  the  use 
of  all  of  them. 

2.  Primitive  Semitic  Sources. — Where  did  Luke  get  his  infor 
mation  for  1 :  5-2  :  52  of  his  Gospel  ?  Wellhausen  drops  this 
portion  from  his  edition  of  Luke's  Gospel  as  not  worthy  of 
consideration  by  the  modern  historian.  At  once,  therefore, 
we  see  Luke  put  on  the  defensive  in  the  use  of  his  sources, 
when  he  finishes  his  prologue.  The  instant  change  in  his  style 
shows  that  he  is  using  Semitic  material  unless  he  is  inventing 
the  whole  story  of  the  infancy  narratives,  and  by  supreme 
literary  skill  is  giving  them  a  Semitic  flavor  to  create  the  im 
pression  of  their  genuineness.  It  is  possible  to  think  that 
Luke  has  been  influenced  by  reading  the  Septuagint,  and  that 
there  may  be  intentional  imitation  by  Luke,  though  a  Greek. 

1  Burkitt,  The  Gospel  History  and  Its  Transmission,  p.  216. 

2  Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  pp.  16  ff. 

3  Birt,  Die  Buchrolle  in  der  Kunst,  p.  178. 


But,  if  so,  why  did  he  not  keep  the  Aramaic  or  Hebrew  color 
ing  throughout?  There  are  scattered  Hebraisms  in  the  Gos 
pel,  but  not  to  the  extent  that  we  see  them  in  Chapters  I  and 
II.  Allen1  is  confident  that  "conscious  imitation  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint  will  quite  adequately  account  for"  these  Hebraisms. 
Dalman2  thinks  that  Luke  "does  not  shrink  from  using  those 
Hebraisms  which  are  most  foreign  to  the  feeling  of  the  Greek 
language."  Bartlet3  holds  that  "  he  consciously  writes  his 
Gospel  on  the  lines  of  the  Greek  Bible."  Probably  so,  but 
one  can  hardly  think  of  so  careful  and  faithful  a  writer  as 
Luke  consciously  using  Hebraisms  to  give  a  sacred  flavor  to 
his  narrative.  To  me  Luke  seems  quite  incapable  of  such  a 
literary  artifice.  Least  of  all  can  one  think  of  the  Greek  Luke 
inventing  the  hymns  of  Mary  and  of  Zacharias. 

If  Luke  "is  a  historian  of  the  first  rank"  and  worthy  of 
being  "placed  along  with  the  very  greatest  historians,"  as 
Ramsay4  argues,  then  he  meets  a  severe  test  at  once  in  these 
opening  chapters.  He  has  just  claimed  that  his  narrative  is 
trustworthy  and  reliable  in  its  use  of  the  sources.  The  very 
first  instance  that  we  have  is  the  story  of  the  infancy.  Cer 
tainly  Luke  means  his  report  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  to  be  taken 
seriously.5  We  have  seen  already  that  "Luke  did  not  rest 
his  narrative  on  unsifted  traditions."  6  We  cannot  except  the 
opening  chapters  from  this  statement.  Indeed,  "the  author 
must  have  regarded  this  part  of  his  work  with  special  interest, 
and  been  impelled  to  work  it  up  with  peculiar  care,  on  account 
of  the  authority  on  which  it  rested."  7  It  is  urged  by  some 
that  this  section  was  a  later  addition,  because  Marcion  omits 
Chapters  1-4  from  his  edition  of  Luke,  but  the  Lukan  char 
acteristics  are  in  these  early  chapters.  Wright8  holds  that 

1  "Aramaic  Background  of  the  Gospels"  (Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic 
Problem,  p.  293). 

2  The  Words  of  Jesus,  p.  83. 

1  "Sources  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel"  (Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem, 
p.  317).  Aramaisms  in  Luke's  style  here  are  seen  in  such  constructions 
as  <*<M<;,  fofcrro,  £$9u<;,  the  use  of  ec;j.(  with  the  participle,  while  genuine 
Hebraisms  appear  in  Iv  TO>  and  the  infinitive,  xcrt  iflwco,  dcxoxptOsl?  elxev, 
!xi0u^(<jc  IxeOujjiiqaa.  Cf .  Dalman,  Words  of  Jesus,  pp.  17  fit. 

4  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  222. 

5  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  73. 

6  Moffatt,  Intr.  to  Lit.  of  N.  T.,  p.  263. 

7  Ramsay.  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  73. 

8  Gospel  According  to  St.  Luke  in  Gk.,  pp.  viii  f. 


Luke  wrote  it,  but  added  it  last  to  the  book.  We  have  noted 
that  it  is  unlikely  that  Luke  would  have  written  a  free  com 
position  in  archaic  style. 

The  remaining  hypothesis  is  that  Luke  used  Semitic  sources 
for  the  infancy  narrative.  It  is  not  certain  whether  Luke's 
authority  here  was  oral  or  written,  Hebrew  or  Aramaic.  Plum- 
mer  (Comm.,  p.  xxiii)  thinks  that  "we  need  not  doubt  the  first 
two  Chapters  are  made  up  of  written  narratives,  of  which  we 
can  see  the  conclusions  at  1 : 80,  2 : 40  and  2 : 52."  It  is 
argued  that  Luke  had  a  written  source  in  original  Hebrew.1 
Dalman2  holds  that  a  Greek  like  Luke  could  not  have  known 
Aramaic.  But  that  is  not  certain.  There  is  no  real  reason 
why  Luke  could  not  know  enough  Aramaic  to  translate  it 
himself.3  There  are  some  traces  of  an  Aramaic  original. 

But  Ramsay  argues  at  great  length  that  the  Aramaic  source 
was  oral  and  not  written,  and  that  Mary  herself  was  that 
source,  either  directly  or  indirectly.  The  story  "is  an  episode 
of  family  history  of  the  most  private  character."4  Sanday5 
thinks  that  Joanna,  the  wife  of  Chuza,  Herod's  steward,  was 
probably  Mary's  confidante,  and  told  Luke  the  wonderful 
story.  We  may  take  it  as  certain  that  Luke  did  not  record 
"  the  narrative  of  the  birth  and  childhood  of  Christ  from  mere 
current  talk  and  general  belief:  he  had  it  in  a  form  for  which 
Mary  herself  was  in  his  opinion  the  responsible  authority."6 
The  story  is  told  from  the  standpoint  of  Mary,  as  in  Matthew 
the  birth  of  Jesus  is  given  from  the  standpoint  of  Joseph. 
Luke  himself  says  that  Mary  "kept  all  these  sayings  hid  in 
her  heart"  (2 : 19),  and  once  more  he  states  that  "Mary  kept 
all  these  sayings,  pondering  them  in  her  heart"  (2  :  21).  "The 
historian,  by  emphasizing  the  silence  and  secrecy  in  which  she 
treasured  up  the  facts,  gives  the  reader  to  understand  that 
she  is  the  authority."  7  With  this  judgment  Harnack8  agrees: 
"Indeed,  from  2 : 19,  51  it  follows  that  the  stories  are  intended 
to  be  regarded  in  the  last  instance  from  Mary  herself."  "His 

1  "Aramaic  Background  of  the  Gospels"  (Oxford  Studies  in  the  Synoptic 
Problem,  p.  292). 

2  Words  of  Jesus,  pp.  38  f . 

3  Moffatt,  Intr.  to  Lit.  of  N.  T.,  p.  267. 

4  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  74. 

5  Expository  Times,  XIV,  p.  299. 

6  Ramsay,  op.  cit.,  p.  80.  7  Ramsay,  op.  cit.,  p.  75. 
8  Date  of  the  Acts  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  p.  155. 


practice  elsewhere  as  an  historian  proves  that  he  could  not 
have  himself  invented  a  fiction  like  this."  l  The  physician  is 
brought  into  close  relation  with  the  inner  life  of  women,  who 
will  reveal  to  him  what  they  would  shrink  from  mentioning  to 
other  men.  There  is  no  known  reason  why  Luke  could  not 
have  seen  Mary  herself  if  she  was  still  living.  Certainly  the 
current  oral  Gospel  (see  Mark)  would  not  contain  the  birth 
narrative.  The  delicate  tact  and  restraint  with  which  Luke 
gives  the  story  add  to  the  impression  of  genuineness  and 
remove  the  narrative  entirely  from  the  mythological  stories  of 
the  gods  and  goddesses  of  Babylon  and  Greece.2 

The  story  of  John's  birth  was  matter  of  common  talk  (Luke 
1 : 65  f.).  It  is  not  hard  to  understand  how  Luke  could  get 
the  data  for  his  narrative.  It  may  have  come  from  the  circle 
of  the  disciples  of  John.3  Luke  presents  John  as  the  forerun 
ner  and  the  inferior  of  Jesus.4 

The  genealogy  in  Luke  2 : 23-38  would  come,  of  course, 
"from  some  legal  or  tribal  or  temple  document."  5 

There  is  every  reason  to  conclude  that  Luke  had  solid  ground 
for  his  narrative  in  the  early  chapters  of  his  Gospel. 

3.  Mark's  Gospel. — It  is  now  practically  demonstrated  that 
Luke  and  Matthew  made  use  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark.  One  can 
test  this  for  himself,  even  in  the  English  translation,  by  a  use 
of  a  harmony  of  the  Gospels.  Thus  we  are  able  to  test  Luke's 
literary  method.  If  one  reads  Mark  2:9-11  and  then  Matt. 
9 : 5-6  and  Luke  5 : 23-24,  it  is  obvious  that  both  Matthew 
and  Luke  had  Mark's  text  before  them,  for  both  preserve  the 
parenthetical  clause  ("He  saith  to  the  paralytic,"  "Then  saith 
he  to  the  paralytic,"  "He  said  to  the  paralyzed  man")  and 
both  follow  Mark  in  placing  the  clause  at  the  same  place  in 
the  midst  of  a  saying  of  Jesus.  The  oral  theory  will  not  ex 
plain  a  case  like  this.  Both  Matthew  and  Luke  had  a  docu 
ment  before  them.  That  document  is  our  Mark.  It  is  not 
absolutely  certain  that  Matthew  and  Luke  had  Mark's  Gospel 
in  precisely  the  form  in  which  we  have  it,  or  in  the  same  form 
for  each.  Holdsworth6  suggests  that  Mark  edited  three  edi- 

1  Ibid.  2  Harnack,  op.  tit.,  p.  156.  3  Ibid.,  p.  154. 

4  Cf .  Wilkinson,  A  Johannine  Document  in  the  First  Chapter  of  S.  Luke's 
Gospel  (1902). 

6  Hayes,  Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts,  p.  199. 
6  Gospel  Origins,  pp.  109-129. 


tions  of  his  Gospel.  The  first  form  was  used  by  Luke,  the 
second  by  Matthew,  and  the  third  is  our  canonical  Mark. 
Stanton1  follows  the  same  line  of  argument.  N.  P.  Williams2 
thinks  that  Mark's  earlier  edition  omitted  Chapter  XIII,  and 
the  so-called  great  interpolation  (Mark  6:45-8:26).  But, 
apart  from  this,  Williams  will  have  no  "Ur-Marcus"  after  the 
theory  of  Wendling.3  Sanday4  sees  no  necessity  of  either  an 
"Ur-Marcus"  or  of  a  threefold  edition  of  Mark's  Gospel.  He 
calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  Luke  did  not  have  to  make  a 
slavish  use  of  Mark  or  of  any  of  his  sources.  He  felt  free  to 
make  minor  variations  at  will.  There  were  probably  varia 
tions  in  the  text  of  Mark  as  used  by  Matthew  and  Luke. 
M.  Jones5  is  inclined  to  agree  with  Sanday.  Hawkins6  thinks 
that  a  later  edition  may  have  added  a  few  details,  but  sees  no 
need  of  an  appeal  to  various  editions.  Swete  sees  no  cause  for 
such  editions,  but  is  willing  to  consider  some  editorial  revision.7 
It  is  clear  that  Luke  had  Mark  before  him  and  practically  in 
the  form  in  which  we  possess  it  to-day.8  We  know  that  Luke 
was  with  Mark  in  Rome  about  A.  D.  63  (Col.  4 : 10;  Phile 
mon  24). 

Mark  is  one,  but  only  one,  of  Luke's  sources.  Luke  follows 
Mark's  general  order  of  events,  especially  in  the  first  part  of 
the  Gospel.  One  needs  a  deal  of  common  sense  in  matters  of 
criticism  to  avoid  one-sided  and  erroneous  conclusions.  Rather 
more  than  half  of  Luke's  material  is  now  found  in  his  Gospel 
alone.9  The  rest  is  divided  between  what  Mark  has  and  the 
non-Markan  matter  common  to  Luke  and  Matthew.  But  in 
a  broad  view  of  the  material  about  two-thirds  of  Luke's  Gospel 
follows  the  track  of  Mark,  while  three-fourths  of  Matthew's 
Gospel  uses  Mark's  Gospel  as  a  framework.10  Apart  from  a 
few  transpositions,  Matthew  and  Luke  do  not  desert  Mark's 

1  The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  part  II,  p.  203. 

2  Oxford  Studies,  p.  421. 

3  Urmarcus  (1905);  Die  Entstehung  des  Marcusevangeliums  (1908). 

4  Oxford  Studies,  pp.   11-22.    See  also  my  Studies  in  Mark's  Gospel, 
pp.  14  f . 

6  N.  T.  in  the  Twentieth  Century,  p.  203. 

6  Horce  Synopticce,  p.  152. 

7  Commentary,  p.  lix.  8  Plummer,  Comm.,  p.  xxiii. 
9  Bebb,  art.  "Luke,"  in  Hastings's  D.  B. 

"Hawkins,  "Three  Limitations  to  St.  Luke's  Use  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel" 
(Oxford  Studies,  p.  29). 


order,  except  in  Matt.  7  :  13  and  Luke  9  :  51-18  :  14.  Luke 
uses  three-fourths  of  Mark's  Gospel,  but  Luke  does  not  always 
follow  Mark  in  matters  of  detail.  Sometimes  Matthew  repro 
duces  Mark,  where  Luke  takes  another  turn.  Harnack1  thinks 
that  Luke  is  somewhat  prejudiced  against  Mark  and  "wrote 
his  Gospel  in  order  to  supplant  Mark."  I  doubt  that,  but  it  is 
remarkable  that  Mark  has  survived,  since  Matthew  and  Luke 
incorporated  nearly  all  of  Mark,  all  but  some  fifty  verses. 

Mark's  Gospel  has  the  vivid  touches  of  Peter's  picturesque 
portrayal  which  gives  the  lifelike  coloring  of  an  eye-witness.2 
Luke  cares  less  for  these  delicate  nuances  and  has  dropped 
Mark's  "green  grass"  and  "flower-beds"  (Mark  6  :  39  f.;  Luke 
9  :  14  f.).  Luke  has  a  more  polished  style  and  smoothes  out 
apparent  roughnesses  or  lack  of  exactness  in  Mark.  In  Mark 

1  :  4  we  have  the  picture  of  digging  through3  the  roof  of  a  Pal 
estinian  hut,  and  the  picture  describes  what  actually  occurred. 
Luke  (5  :  19)  seems  rather  to  have  the  picture  of  a  Roman 
house  with  a  tile  roof.4    Carpenter5  thinks  that  nearly  all  of 
the  changes  and  omissions  in  Luke  can  be  explained.     Both 
Matthew  and  Luke  largely  avoid  Mark's  frequent  use  of  the 
historical  present.     There  are  a  few  other  instances,  probably 
due  to  textual  variations,  in  which  Matthew  and  Luke  agree 
against  Mark,  but  they  are  unimportant.6 

It  seems  unlikely  that  Luke  made  any  use  of  Mark  at  all  for 

2  :  51-18  :  14.     Here,  as  we  shall  see,  Luke  had  other  sources. 
But  Luke  did  not  use  Mark  6  :  45-8  :  26,  what  is  termed  the 
great  omission.     It  is  not  clear  why  Luke  made  no  use  of  this 
portion  of  Mark.     It  may  have  been  accidental,  but  it  is  more 
likely  intentional  on  Luke's  part,  because  he  had  so  much 
other  matter  which  he  desired  to  use.7    Hawkins8  thinks  that 
the  material  -was  such  that  Luke  would  not  be  indisposed  to 

1  Luke  the  Physician  ,  p.  158. 

2  Robertson,  Studies  in  Mark's  Gospel,  eh.  IV.  3  l^opu^cevTe?. 
4  Sco:  TUV  xspdfjLwv.     Cf.  Ramsay,  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  46. 

6  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  p.  130.  Cadbury  (The  Treatment  of 
Sources  in  the  Gospel,  p.  96)  thinks  that  in  some  instances  Luke  misunder 
stood  Mark. 

6  Hawkins,  Horce  Synopticce,  pp.  201  f.;  Carpenter,  op.  cit.,  pp.  130  f. 
In  Luke  5  :  19  Klostermann  (Handbuch  zum  N.  T.,  1919,  in  loco)  calls  xaOf 
"  lukanisch  "  for 

7  See  Hawkins,  "The  Great  Omission"  (Oxford  Studies,  pp.  60-74) 

8  Op.  cit.t  p.  74. 


pass  it  by.  Holdsworth,  Williams,  and  Wright  say  that  Luke's 
edition  of  Mark  did  not  contain  this  section. 

In  the  Passion  narrative  (Luke  22 : 14-24 : 10)  Luke  follows 
Mark,  but  with  more  freedom  than  elsewhere,  and  apparently 
with  other  sources  at  hand.  Hawkins1  has  a  thorough  discus 
sion  of  the  subject  and  seems  to  prove  the  point.  In  Luke 
22 : 15-22  reference  to  the  betrayal  by  Judas  comes  after  the 
supper,  and  there  are  two  cups  in  Luke's  account  of  the  sup 
per.  What  other  source  or  sources  did  Luke  possess?  It  is 
clear  that  he  had  at  least  one  other  document,  besides  oral 
witnesses,  almost  certainly  two,  and  possibly  more.  He  used 
Mark  in  common  with  Matthew.  Did  Matthew  and  Luke 
have  any  other  document  that  both  show  signs  of  using? 

4.  The  Logia  (Q). — About  one-sixth  of  Luke's  Gospel  agrees 
with  Matthew's  Gospel  in  non-Markan  material.  Whence  did 
they  get  it?  This  matter  consists  mainly  of  sayings  of  Jesus. 
Hence,  it  is  supposed  that  there  was  a  collection  of  such  say 
ings,  called  Logia  of  Jesus.  Indeed,  we  know  that  such  was 
the  case,  for  scraps  of  such  collections  have  been  found  in  the 
papyri  of  Egypt.2  Besides,  Papias3  expressly  says  that  "Mat 
thew  composed  the  oracles4  in  the  Hebrew5  language,  and  each 
man  interpreted  them  as  he  was  able."  To  what  does  Papias, 
as  quoted  by  Eusebius,  refer  ?  It  is  hard  to  think  that  Papias 
is  describing  our  present  Gospel  of  Matthew,  which  does  not 
seem  to  be  a  translation  from  Aramaic  or  Hebrew.6  True,  the 
term  "oracles"  need  not  be  confined  to  discourses,  though  that 
is  the  natural  way  to  take  it.  "One  or  two  critics  suppose  it 
to  be  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews.  Professor  Burkitt 
and  some  others  believe  it  to  have  been  a  collection  of  Testi- 
monia  or  Messianic  proof-texts  from  the  Old  Testament.  But 
the  most  probable  view  is  that  which  identifies  the  Logia  with 
Q."  7  Now  what  is  Q?  Q  stands  for  the  German  word  for 
source  (Quelle)  and  simply  acts  as  a  symbol  for  the  non- 

1  Op.  tit.,  pp.  76-95. 

2  Lock  and  Sanday,  Two  Lectures  on  the  Oxyrhynchus  Sayings  of  Jesus 
(1889);  Taylor,  The  Oxyrhynchus  Logia  (1899);  Taylor,  The  Oxyrhynchus 
Sayings  of  Jesus  (1905). 

3  Eusebius,  Hist.  EccL,  III,  39.  4  -ci  X6yta. 
6  Probably  Aramaic,  as  in  Paul's  case  (Acts  22  : 2). 

6  See  Introduction  to  my  Comm.  on  Matt.  (Bible  for  Home  and  School)  for 

7  Carpenter,  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  p.  140. 


Markan  matter  common  to  both  Matthew  and  Luke.  It  is 
not  hard  to  see  what  this  material  is.  Hawkins1  gives  a  care 
ful  list  of  the  passages  where  Matthew  and  Luke  agree  in  the 
use  of  the  non-Markan  matter.  Harnack2  gives  the  Greek 
text  of  these  passages  with  critical  notes  and  appraisement. 
It  is  possible,  even  probable,  that  Matthew  himself  wrote  this 
collection  of  Logia  which  critics  call  Q.3  But  Q  is  used  to 
avoid  begging  the  question  on  that  subject.4  Only  the  use  of 
Q  must  not  be  allowed  to  prejudice  one  against  the  idea  that 
Matthew  did  write  it.5  The  use  of  so  many  parallel  passages 
of  considerable  length  seems  to  prove  a  common  written  source.6 
It  would  be  possible7  to  explain  these  passages  on  the  theory 
that  Luke  made  use  of  our  present  Gospel  of  Matthew  but  for 
the  great  divergence  between  Luke  and  Matthew  in  the  birth 
narrative,  the  genealogy  and  various  matters  of  detail.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  decide  here  whether  Matthew  himself  wrote 
in  Greek  the  present  Gospel  of  his  name,  as  is  quite  possible, 
as  well  as  the  Logia  (Aramaic  or  Greek  or  both).  What  is  cer 
tain  is  that  Luke  had  access  to  the  same  source  for  this  material 
that  our  present  Matthew  had.8  Streeter9  thinks  that  "had 
Matthew  written,  it  would  have  been  a  book  like  this."  The 
hope  has  been  expressed  that  a  copy  of  Q  may  yet  be  found, 
but  Carpenter10  considers  it  "exceedingly  unlikely."  J.  H. 
Moulton11  has  pointed  out  that  "in  no  soil  outside  of  Egypt 
could  a  papyrus  copy  of  Q  have  lain  hid  and  yet  safe  from 
inevitable  decay."  It  may  be  thought  possible  that  such  a 
copy  was  made  and  taken  to  Egypt. 

As  to  the  date  of  Q,  it  is  clear  that  it  is  earlier  than  Mark. 
Streeter12  makes  a  good  case  for  the  view  that  Mark  knew  and 
made  some  use  of  Q.  Certainly  Q  is  older  than  Mark.  "  Noth 
ing  prevents  it  from  being  assigned  to  the  year  fifty,  or  even 

1  HorcB  Synopticce,  pp.  107-113.  2  Sayings  of  Jesus  (1908). 

8  Harnack,  ibid.,  p.  249. 

4  Robinson,  Study  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  69  f . 

5  Hawkins,  op.  cit.,  p.  107.  6  Ibid.,  p.  66. 

7  As  Holtzmann,  Simons,  Wendt  and  others  do  in  fact. 

8  B.  Weiss,  Intr.  to  the  Lit.  of  N.  T.,  II,  p.  294. 

9  Oxford  Studies,  p.  216. 

10  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  p.  141,  n.  3. 

11  Expositor,  July,  1917,  p.  17. 

12  Oxford  Studies,  pp.  165-183. 


earlier."  l  Streeter2  adds:  "If  our  characterization  of  Q  above 
is  correct,  it  was  probably  written  twenty  years  before  Mark, 
and  might  well  have  reached  Rome  before  him."  Ramsay3 
thinks  that  Q  was  written  down  during  the  life  of  Jesus  and  did 
not  include  the  account  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
Ramsay4  has  developed  this  contention  with  great  plausibility 
that  Q  is  "a  document  practically  contemporary  with  the 
facts,  and  it  registered  the  impressions  made  on  eye-witnesses 
of  the  words  and  acts  of  Christ"  (p.  89).  Streeter5  suggests 
that  Mark  wrote  to  supplement  Q  as  Luke  wrote  to  supplement 
both  Q  and  Mark.  He  makes  much  of  the  point  that  Q  is 
close  to  the  living  oral  tradition.  "At  that  period  and  in  that 
non-literary  society  of  Palestine  only  that  was  written  down 
which  one  would  be  likely  to  forget."  6  All  this  would  suit  the 
idea  that  Matthew,  the  publican,  took  down  notes  of  the  say 
ings  of  Jesus,  if  necessary  in  shorthand,  which  was  in  common 
use  at  that  time.  Allen7  agrees  with  Ramsay  that  Harnack's 
notion  of  Q  forbids  its  circulation  in  the  early  years  of  Chris 
tian  history,  and  holds,  at  any  rate,  that  Harnack  abbreviates 
Q  too  much.  But  Harnack  only  presents  a  minimum. 

As  to  the  original  extent  of  Q,  Streeter8  shows  it  was  almost 
certainly  larger  than  the  non-Markan  material  common  to 
Luke  and  Matthew.  But  Matthew  and  Luke  differ  in  their 
use  of  Mark.  The  common  Markan  material  amounts  to 
only  two-thirds  of  our  Mark.  Each  uses  portions  of  Mark  not 
used  by  the  other.  Precisely  this  situation  probably  exists  as 
to  Q.  If  so,  we  must  greatly  enlarge  our  idea  of  the  extent 
of  Q.  Besides,  Hawkins9  shows  that  Matthew  and  Luke  put 
three-fourths  of  Q,  as  used  by  them,  in  different  places.  It 
must  be  still  further  admitted  that  Q  may  have  contained  mat 
ter  not  used  by  either  Matthew  or  Luke. 

Streeter  10  thinks  it  possible  that  Matthew  and  Luke  had  dif 
ferent  editions  of  Q.  Bartlet n  takes  up  this  idea  and  carries  it 
still  further.  He  holds  that,  when  Luke  got  hold  of  Q,  it  had 

1  Harnack,  Date  of  the  Acts  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  p.  125,  n.  1. 

2  Oxjord  Studies,  p.  219.  3  Expositor,  May,  1907. 

4  "The  Oldest  Written  Gospel"  (Luke  the  Physician,  pp.  71-101).    So 
Salmon,  The  Human  Element  in  the  Gospels,  p.  274. 

5  Oxford  Studies,  p.  219.  6  Oxford  Studies,  p.  215. 
7  Ibid.,  p.  239.  8  Ibid.,  p.  185. 

9  Oxford  Studies,  p.  120.  10  Ibid.,  p.  205. 

11  "The  Sources  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel"  (Oxford  Studies,  pp.  313-363). 


already  been  combined  with  another  special  source,  so  that 
Bartlet  can  talk  of  QM,  QMk,  QL.  Stanton1  agrees  with 
Bartlet  in  this  view  of  Luke's  special  source.  This  is  a  special 
two-document  theory  for  Luke.  The  commonly  accepted  two- 
document  hypothesis  is  that  both  Matthew  and  Luke  used 
Mark  and  Q.  Both  Matthew  and  Luke  had,  of  course,  other 
sources  of  information,  but  these  two  explain  most  of  what  we 
find  in  them.  Sanday2  assumes  this  "  Two-Document  Hypoth 
esis"  and  cannot  follow  Bartlet  in  his  special  interpretation.3 

Before  we  proceed  to  the  discussion  of  Luke's  special  sources 
it  is  pertinent  to  inquire  what  view  of  Christ  is  given  in  Q. 
Harnack4  discusses  "the  Personality  of  Our  Lord"  in  Q  and 
seeks  to  give  a  depreciated  view  of  Christ  in  our  oldest  known 
Gospel  record.  But  the  facts  do  not  justify  this  interpreta 
tion,  as  I  have  shown  in  The  Contemporary  Review*  in  an  article 
on  "The  Christ  of  the  Logia."  The  Christ  of  Q  is  in  essence 
the  Christ  of  Mark,  of  Matthew,  of  Luke,  of  Paul,  of  John.  The 
earliest  known  picture  of  Christ  is  drawn  on  the  same  scale 
and  plan  as  the  latest.  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  pictured  in  Q  as 
the  Son  of  God  as  well  as  the  Son  of  Man. 

5.  Other  Sources  of  Information. — It  is  plain  that  Luke  had 
special  sources  of  knowledge  beyond  Mark  and  Q  and  beyond 
the  infancy  narrative.  Bartlet  would  make  his  second  source 
cover  practically  the  whole  of  what  Luke  gives  us,  parallel 
even  with  Mark's  narrative.6  But  that  theory  is  not  likely  to 
win  a  foothold.  Bartlet  thinks  that  Luke's  second  source 
came  to  him  in  oral  form  and  was  first  written  down  by  him. 
It  is  not  surprising  that  we  are  not  able  to  find  all  of  Luke 
in  Mark  and  Q,  though  we  must  admit  that  some  of  what  we 
discuss  at  this  point  may  well  have  been  in  Q.  It  is  worth 
saying  that  Luke  probably  had  sources  that  can  never  be 
traced.  He  said  that  he  had  "many,"  both  oral  and  written. 
The  facts  seem  to  justify  his  statement.  Kirsopp  Lake7  holds 
that  Luke  used  only  Mark,  Q,  the  LXX  and  possibly  Josephus. 
But  our  failure  to  find  all  of  Luke's  sources  does  not  of  neces 
sity  limit  his  resources.  The  misfortune  is  ours,  not  Luke's. 

1  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  II,  pp.  239  f . 

2  Oxford  Studies,  p.  2.  3  Ibid .,  pp.  xx  f . 

4  The  Sayings  of  Jesus,  pp.  233-246. 

5  August,  1919.  6  Oxford  Studies,  p.  323. 
7  Hastings's  Diet,  of  the  Ap.  Church. 


The  "Two-Document  Hypothesis"  does  not  undertake  to 
refer  all  of  Luke's  Gospel  to  Mark  and  Q.  There  is  a  large 
residuum  outside,  or  apparently  outside,  for  we  are  bound  to 
note  that  we  do  not  know  the  limits  of  Q.  Luke  9 :  51-18 : 14 
is  generally  called  the  Great  Interpolation,  because  in  this  sec 
tion  Luke  fails  to  follow  the  Markan  material.  Hawkins1 
terms  it  "the  Disuse  of  the  Markan  Source/*  Burton2  calls  it 
"the  Persean  Document."  But  Streeter3  objects  to  this  desig 
nation  and  notes  that  of  the  block  9 :  51-12 :  59,  "nearly  four- 
fifths,  as  occurring  also  in  Matthew,  is  verifiably  Q,  as  in  the 
case,  also,  with  all  but  a  few  verses  of  13 : 18-35."  Certainly, 
then,  a  large  part  of  the  so-called  Great  Interpolation  comes 
from  Q.  It  is  in  this  section  that  many  of  the  "doublets"  in 
Luke's  Gospel  occur.  Sanday4  urges  strongly  that  "allowance 
should,  however,  be  made  for  the  possibility  of  what  may  be 
called  real  doublets  as  well  as  literary  doublets.  I  believe  that 
similar  sayings  were  spoken  by  Our  Lord  more  than  once." 
This  is  certainly  true,  as  every  popular  preacher  or  teacher 
knows  in  his  own  experience.  Repetition  is  not  only  common 
with  the  public  speakers  to  different  audiences  in  different 
localities,  but  to  the  same  audience,  if  one  is  to  be  understood. 
Not  only  may  one  use  similar  sayings,  but  he  must  repeat  the 
same  sayings  to  drive  the  point  home.  Those  critics  forget 
this  fact  who  insist  that  Luke  has  here  dumped  together  a 
mass  of  material  that  he  did  not  know  what  else  to  do  with, 
material  that  really  belongs  elsewhere,  as  we  see  from  Matthew. 
But  such  criticism  forgets,  also,  Luke's  express  claim  to  an 
orderly  discussion.  It  is  just  as  easy  to  think  of  repetition  of 
similar  incidents  and  like  sayings  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  It  is 
precisely  in  the  Great  Interpolation  that  the  great  parables  in 
Luke  occur.  "The  more  we  consider  his  collection,  the  more 
we  are  entranced  with  it.  It  is  the  very  cream  of  the  Gospel, 
and  yet  (strange  to  say)  it  is  peculiar  to  Luke."  5  Wright 
terms  this  a  "Pauline  collection,"  not  because  he  derived  it 
from  Paul,  but  because  it  breathes  Paul's  cosmopolitan  spirit. 
But  Jesus  was  cosmopolitan  before  Paul  and  more  so.  Haw- 

1  Oxford  Studies,  pp.  29-59. 

zSome  Principles  of  Literary  Criticism  and  Their  Application  to  the 
Synoptic  Problem,  p.  49. 

3  Oxford  Studies,  pp.  189  f .  4  Oxford  Studies,  p.  xvii. 

5  Wright,  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels. 


kins1  calls  it  "The  Travel-Document,"  but  cannot  believe  that 
Luke  was  one  of  the  seventy  sent  forth  by  Jesus.  He  thinks 
that  Luke  may  even  have  drafted  this  document  himself  be 
fore  he  began  the  Gospel  narrative.  He  may  have  obtained 
first-hand  information  from  one  of  the  eye-witnesses  who  was 
with  Jesus,  possibly  one  of  the  seventy.  So  the  matter  must 
rest  for  the  present.  Only  we  must  note  that  Luke  may  well 
have  had  a  special  source  (written  or  oral)  for  the  later  Persean 
and  Judean  Ministry,  which  parallels  in  many  respects  the 
great  Galilean  Ministry.  It  is  possible  that  in  John's  Gospel 
we  have  a  parallel  to  the  three  journeys  of  Jesus  to  Jerusalem 
in  this  section.  John  describes  three  journeys  to  Jerusalem  in 
the  later  ministry  (7:2;  11:17;  12:1).  These  may  corre 
spond2  to  Luke's  journeys  (9 : 51;  13 : 22;  17 : 11). 

Did  Luke  have  any  other  special  sources?  It  has  already 
been  noted  that  in  Luke's  account  of  the  Passion  Week  Luke 
"does  not  abandon  Mark,  but  uses  him  with  freedom,  and 
makes  a  number  of  additions." 3  Did  Luke  have  another 
written  record  of  the  Passion  of  Christ,  or  did  he  supplement 
Mark  from  oral  tradition  ?  Some  hold  that  the  copy  of  Q  that 
Luke  used  had  received  this  narrative  addition.  It  is  to  be 
noted  that  Luke  uses  much  more  freedom  in  the  arrangement 
of  his  material  here  than  in  the  early  parts  of  his  Gospel.  But 
Hawkins4  holds  that  here,  beyond  a  doubt,  Luke  makes  use  of 
oral  material,  and  probably  as  a  result  of  Paul's  preaching. 
Paul  preached  largely  about  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Jesus.  The  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in 
Luke  22 : 19  f.  is  almost  precisely  the  language  of  Paul  in 
I  Cor.  11 : 23-25.  Luke  was  a  fellow  worker  with  Paul  (Phile 
mon  24).  Moulton  has  suggested  that  Paul  was  in  Jerusalem 
before  the  Crucifixion  and  collected  evidence  against  Jesus, 
that  he  had  witnessed  the  death  of  Christ  and  that  the  face 
he  saw  on  the  road  to  Damascus  he  had  first  seen  on  the 
Cross.  All  this  is  quite  possible,  but  Luke  was  not  confined 
to  Paul's  preaching  and  Mark's  Gospel.  He  knew  James,  the 

1  Oxford  Studies,  pp.  55  ff. 

8  See  Broadus's  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  p.  251. 

8  Carpenter,  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  p.  145.  McLachlan  (St. 
Luke:  The  Man  and  His  Work,  p.  19)  holds  that  Luke  shows  the  same 
"  decided  literary  ability  "  in  the  use  of  these  unknown  sources. 

'Expositor,  July,  1911. 


brother  of  Jesus  (Acts  21 : 18),  Manaen,  a  foster-brother  of 
Herod  (Acts  13:1),  Joanna  (Luke  8:3;  24:10),  the  wife  of 
Herod's  steward  Chuza,  who  could  tell  much  about  the  trial 
before  Herod  as  well  as  before  Pilate.  Luke  knew  Philip  and 
his  daughters  at  Caesarea  (Acts  21  :  8).  During  the  two  years 
at  Csesarea,  Luke  had  abundant  opportunity  to  secure  full  and 
precise  information  for  his  Gospel.  Harnack1  seeks  to  dis 
credit  these  eye-witnesses  of  the  word:  "These  we  must  think 
of  as  'ecstatics.'  Altogether  wanting  in  sober-mindedness  and 
credibility,  like  Philip  and  his  four  prophesying  daughters 
who  came  to  Asia."  "Papias,  who  himself  saw  the  daughters, 
expressly  states  that  they  transmitted  stories  of  the  old  days." 
But  why  discredit  them?  They  may,  indeed,  partly  explain 
Luke's  interest  in  the  work  of  women  for  Christ,  but  that  fact 
throws  no  shadow  on  his  record  as  a  historian.  In  the  Galilean 
section  of  the  Gospel,  Luke  adds  various  items  (Luke  4 :  3-13, 
16-30;  5 : 1-11;  6  :  21-49;  7 : 1-8)  to  Mark's  narrative.  Bur 
ton  would  suggest  a  special  Galilean  document' for  these  varia 
tions,  but  Wright  thinks  "anonymous  fragments"  sufficient 
to  explain  the  phenomena.  We  cannot  claim  that  we  have 
traced  all  of  Luke's  sources  for  his  Gospel.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  do  so.  Enough  is  now  known  to  justify  Luke's  claim  to 
the  use  of  "many"  records  and  reports  of  eye-witnesses  and 
others  who  told  the  story  of  Jesus  by  voice  or  pen.  "The 
conclusion  to  which  we  must  come  is  that  S.  Luke's  Gospel, 
as  has  been  often  pointed  out,  is  a  new  work." 2  He  has  not 
been  a  mere  annalist  or  copyist.  He  has  made  careful  research 
for  the  facts  and  has  taken  equal  pains  to  write  a  narrative 
that  is  more  complete  than  any  in  existence  and  that  is  accu 
rate  and  reliable.  He  has  done  it  with  the  skill  of  the  literary 
artist  and  with  the  stamp  of  his  own  style  and  personality  at 
every  turn.  He  has  woven  the  material  together  into  a  unified 
whole  that  is  to-day  the  joy  of  all  lovers  of  Jesus  and  the  de 
spair  of  all  imitators.  Luke  has  made  the  whole  world  see 
Jesus  as  he  saw  him,  in  the  vivid  stories  and  narratives  that 
made  his  own  soul  glow  with  the  Light  of  the  ages. 

1  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  153. 

2  Carpenter,  op.  cit.,  p.  147.     Mr.  Lummis  (How  Luke  Was  Written,  p. 
46)  thinks  that  Luke  was  a  young  man  when  he  began  the  Gospel, 


"We  sought  to  go  forth  into  Macedonia"  (Acts  16: 10) 

1.  Both  Oral  and  Written  Sources. — There  is  no  formal  state 
ment  of  Luke's  method  of  study  in  the  Acts,  but  one  is  entitled 
to  believe  that  what  Luke  said  in  the  Gospel  applies  to  the 
Acts.1  Certainly  he  would  be  no  less  industrious  and  pains 
taking.  He  would  use  all  available  material  that  would  help 
him  in  his  laudable  ambition  to  picture  the  growth  of  Christi 
anity  in  the  Roman  Empire.  Luke  has  not  told  us  what  his 
aim  is  in  the  Acts,  and  modern  scholars  differ  greatly  about 
it.  It  is  clear  that  the  book  is  not  a  history  of  the  work  of  all 
the  apostles  nor  of  all  the  work  of  any  one  of  them.  It  is  not 
a  biography  of  Paul,  for  great  gaps  exist  in  the  story  of  Paul's 
work,  as  we  can  see  from  Paul's  Epistles.  It  is  not  a  sketch  of 
Peter  and  Paul  for  the  purpose  of  reconciling  two  factions  in 
Christianity  that  followed  these  leaders.  And  yet  it  is  true 
that  "  the  most  superficial  examination  of  Acts  shows  that  it 
is  divided  most  obviously  into  a  'Peter'  part  and  a  'Paul' 
part." 2  But  this  is  true  because  in  the  stages  of  the  apostolic 
period  Peter  was  the  chief  figure,  while  Paul  took  the  leader 
ship  later  on.  So  in  chapters  1-12  Jerusalem  is  the  centre 
of  Christian  activity,  while  in  Chapters  13-28  the  centre  has 
shifted  to  Antioch.  An  elaborate  " source-criticism"  has  arisen 
on  the  basis  of  the  outstanding  facts.  A  complicated  system 
of  " redactions"  for  the  result  has  been  worked  out  that  is  theo 
retical  and  unsatisfactory.  Moffatt3  gives  a  careful  sketch  of 
the  theories  of  Blass,  Briggs,  Clemen,  Harnack,  Jiingst,  Sorof, 
Spitta,  B.  Weiss.  Headlam4  thinks  that  the  statement  of  most 
of  the  speculations  refutes  them.  Harnack  thinks  that  for  the 

1Luke  probably  had  both  books  in  mind  when  he  wrote  the  Gospel. 
Certain  it  is  that  both  books  at  first  circulated  together,  parts  of  one 
whole.  Chase,  Credibility  of  the  Acts,  p.  16. 

2  Lake,  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Church. 

3  Intr.  to  Lit.  of  N.  T.,  pp.  286-9.         4  Hastings's  D.  B.,  art.  "Acts." 



first  twelve  chapters  of  Acts  Luke  has  no  written  documents, 
while  C.  C.  Torrey  holds  that  Luke  translated  an  Aramaic  doc 
ument  for  Chapters  1-15.  So  the  doctors  differ.  We  do  not 
have  the  benefit  of  actual  comparison  of  Acts  with  the  original 
sources  to  help  us,  as  was  true  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke  with  Mark 
and  Q.  Hence  the  result  is  more  inconclusive.  But  some  broad 
facts  are  clear.  One  is  the  use  of  both  oral  and  written  sources. 
Another  is  that  Luke  himself  is  a  participant  in  a  large  part  of 
the  story.  Another  is  the  fact  of  Paul's  presence  and  Epistles. 
Another  is  the  stay  of  Luke  in  Csesarea  and  Palestine,  when 
he  had  opportunity  to  learn  much  about  the  earlier  stages  of  the 
history  before  he  became  a  Christian.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that 
Luke  had  exceptionally  good  opportunities  for  obtaining  his 
torical  data  for  the  Acts.  And  yet  the  trustworthiness  of  the 
Acts  has  been  more  severely  criticised  than  has  that  of  the 
Gospel.  It  is  precisely  the  Acts  that  has  been  more  helped  by 
recent  discovery  and  criticism  than  any  other  book  of  the 
New  Testament.  The  Gospel  of  Luke,  as  we  shall  see,  was 
sharply  criticised  in  3 : 1-3  for  alleged  historical  blunders,  but 
the  Acts  was  attacked  in  scores  of  places.  Luke  has  been 
vindicated  in  nearly  all  of  these  instances  where  once  he  stood 
alone  and  is  entitled  to  respectful  consideration  in  the  rest. 

Ramsay1  holds  that  the  Acts  has  been  the  victim  of  a  false 
interpretation  of  the  relation  of  Roman  history  and  Chris 
tianity.  For  long  it  was  assumed  that  Christianity  was  not 
persecuted  by  the  state  before  Trajan's  famous  "Rescript" 
about  A.  D.  112.  Hence  all  documents,  like  Acts,  which 
showed  evidence  of  such  persecution,  were  relegated  to  the 
second  century.  But  it  is  now  plain  that  Pliny  and  Trajan 
are  discussing  a  standing  procedure,  not  a  new  order  or  atti 
tude.  "Yet  a  long  series  of  critics  misunderstood  the  docu 
ments,  and  rested  their  theory  of  early  Christian  history  on 
their  extraordinary  blunder."2  Ramsay3  makes  it  clear  how 
important  this  point  really  is:  "This  change  of  view  as  regards 
the  attitude  of  the  Roman  state  toward  the  Christian  Church, 
while  it  affects  the  whole  New  Testament,  has  been  the  turn 
ing-point  in  the  tide  of  opinion  regarding  the  Acts.  That  is 
the  history  of  Christianity  in  the  Roman  Empire;  there  were 
indubitably  some  attempts  to  propagate  Christianity  toward 

1  Pauline  and  Other  Studies,  p.  195.  2  Ibid. 

*IUd.,  pp.  195  f. 


the  east  and  south,  beyond  the  limits  of  the  empire,  but  the 
author  of  Acts  regards  these  efforts  as  unimportant,  and  omits 
them  entirely  from  his  view."  So,  then,  "what  is  urgently 
required  at  the  present  time  in  early  Christian  history  is  a 
completely  new  start,  free  from  all  assumptions,  whether  on 
the  'critical'  or  on  the  'traditional'  side."  l  Paul  (Acts  19 :  21) 
had  an  ambition  to  evangelize  the  Roman  Empire,  and  Luke 
is  seized  with  this  conception  and  carries  Paul  to  Rome,  the 
capital,  where  they  both  are  at  the  time  of  writing  the  Acts. 
Ramsay2  explains  how  his  studies  in  Roman  provincial  history 
in  Asia  Minor  compelled  him  to  see  how  the  Acts  "must  have 
been  written  in  the  first  century  and  with  admirable  knowl 
edge.  It  plunges  one  into  the  atmosphere  and  the  circum 
stances  of  the  first  century;  it  is  out  of  harmony  with  the  cir 
cumstances  and  spirit  of  the  second  century." 

The  Acts  as  a  whole  bears  the  stamp  of  one  mind,  in  spite  of 
the  variety  of  sources,  as  truly  as  does  Luke's  Gospel.  We 
must  think  of  Luke  as  drafting  the  plan  of  the  book  to  suit  his 
purpose  and  using  the  material  that  suited  his  aim.  He  first 
gathered  his  data  and  then  went  to  work  on  his  facts.  The 
result  is  one  of  the  great  books  of  all  time. 

2.  Personal  Experiences  of  the  Author. — It  is  best  to  begin 
with  the  "we"  sections  of  Acts  (16:9-40;  20:5-28:31),  for 
here  Luke  himself  was  an  eye-witness  (cf .  Luke  1:2)  of  the 
story  which  he  tells.  He  is  Paul's  companion  and  minister 
for  that  part  of  the  second  journey  from  Troas  to  Philippi, 
and  on  the  return  trip  in  the  third  tour  from  Philippi  to  Jeru 
salem,  in  Csesarea  for  two  years  (most  of  it),  on  the  voyage  to 
Rome  and  for  two  years  there.  Here  Luke  was  a  participant 
in  the  events  and  could  speak  from  personal  knowledge.  We 
do  not  have  to  think  that  Luke  remained  constantly  with  Paul 
during  the  whole  of  the  two  years  and  more  in  Csesarea,  but  he 
evidently  made  Csesarea  headquarters  and  probably  heard 
Paul  make  his  several  defenses  in  Jerusalem  and  Csesarea. 
Thus  we  can  best  understand  the  great  fulness  of  detail  for 
these  parts  of  Acts.  Luke  had  the  glowing  interest  of  one 
who  lived  through  those  exciting  days.  The  style  is  in  all 
essentials  the  same  in  the  "we"  sections  as  in  the  rest  of  the 
Acts,  but  with  an  added  freedom  and  vividness. 

It  is  probable  that  Luke  kept  a  diary  for  the  time  that  he 

1  IUd.}  p.  197.  2  Ibid.,  p.  199. 


was  with  Paul  and  is  rewriting  that  for  the  Acts.  For  this 
reason  Luke  retains  the  "we"  and  "us."  Luke  was  too  care 
ful  a  writer  to  retain  the  pronoun  if  he  was  using  the  travel 
diary  of  another  person.  He  was  too  honest  a  historian  to 
seek  to  create  the  impression  that  he  was  present  when  he  was 
not.1  He  was  not  the  kind  of  man  to  pose  as  an  eye-witness. 
Some  preachers  are  accused  of  appropriating  illustrations  and 
applying  them  to  their  own  experiences  for  rhetorical  effect. 
Carpenter2  aptly  says :  "  If  he  had  wanted  to  pretend,  he  would 
have  been  clever  enough  to  do  it  more  efficiently.  He  would 
have  stated  roundly  that  he  had  been  there.  It  is  true  that 
he  was  a  literary  artist.  But  one  of  the  first  duties  of  a  lit 
erary  artist  is  to  use  language  that  will  convey  his  meaning 
and  be  understood  by  those  for  whom  he  writes."  It  is  not 
necessary  to  repeat  the  arguments  that  prove  conclusively  that 
the  "we"  sections  of  Acts  are  written  in  the  same  style  as  the 
rest  of  the  Acts  and  of  the  Gospel.  Harnack3  sums  the  mat 
ter  up  by  saying:  "In  no  other  part  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
are  the  peculiarities  of  vocabulary  and  style  of  the  author  of 
the  twofold  work  so  accumulated  and  concentrated  as  they 
are  in  the  "we"  sections. 

Blass4  thinks  that,  whatever  is  true  of  the  Gospel,  for  the 
Acts  there  is  no  need  to  raise  any  question  concerning  the 
sources,  least  of  all  for  the  "we"  sections.  He  argues  that 
Luke  was  so  constantly  with  various  participants  in  the  events. 
Ramsay5  has  no  patience  with  the  idea  that  Luke  had  access 
to  reliable  sources  here  and  there,  but  not  as  a  whole:  "That 
way  of  juggling  with  the  supposed  authorities  of  Luke,  too, 
has  been  abandoned  since  then  by  all  competent  scholars. 
The  idea  that  the  writer  of  the  Acts  had  good  authorities  to 
rely  on  for  one  or  two  details  alone  would  not  now  be  suggested 
or  tolerated.  That  writer  had  a  certain  general  level  of  knowl 
edge  and  information  and  judgment.  He  has  to  be  estimated 
as  a  whole."  That  is  obviously  true,  and  yet  it  is  pertinent 
to  show,  where  possible,  the  nature  of  the  sources  at  Luke's 
disposal.  It  is  important  that  we  do  not  expect  too  much  of 
the  Acts.  It  is  not  a  biographical  monograph  with  exhaustive 

1  Carpenter,  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  p.  13. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  14.  3  Date  of  the  Acts  and  the  Gospels,  p.  12. 
4  Acta  Apostolorum,  p.  10. 

6  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  80. 


details  concerning  any  one  character.1  From  Acts  13 : 1  on 
the  book  "becomes  practically  a  biographical  sketch  of  some 
phases  of  Paul's  life  and  work." 2  Note  the  careful  language 
of  Moffatt.  Luke  does  not  aim  at  a  complete  narration  of  all 
events  about  Paul,  but  he  tells  what  falls  in  with  his  purpose. 
Von  Soden3  notes  that  it  was  a  common  custom  for  distin 
guished  travellers  to  have  a  diary  kept  by  some  member  of  the 
party  as  an  aid  to  memory  and  for  future  use.  It  has  been 
suggested  that  Xenophon  did  this  for  his  Anabasis.  It  is 
noteworthy  that  Luke  had  the  historical  insight  to  keep  such 
a  diary  while  with  Paul.  In  particular,  Luke  may  have  made 
notes  of  Paul's  speeches  which  he  heard  (see  later).  Hayes4 
thinks  that  Luke  is  a  hero-worshipper  of  the  first  order,  and 
but  for  his  devotion  to  Paul  he  might  never  have  written  the 

3.  Paul. — It  is  certain  that  Luke  was  with  Paul  some  five 
or  six  years  (at  Troas,  Philippi,  the  journey  to  Jerusalem, 
Jerusalem,  Csesarea,  voyage,  Rome),  most  of  the  time,  if  not 
all  the  time.  It  would  have  been  very  strange  if  Luke  did  not 
consult  Paul  at  all  about  matters  relating  to  their  companion 
ship  and  fellowship.  It  is  here  assumed,  of  course,  that  Luke 
wrote  the  Acts  in  Rome  before  Paul  was  set  free  from  the  first 
Roman  imprisonment.  Paul  may  have  had  notes  of  some  of 
his  speeches  on  which  Luke  could  draw  for  the  course  of  his 
argument  if  his  own  notes  were  deficient.  He  could  ask  Paul 
to  fill  in  a  gap  here  or  there.  He  could  use  Paul's  recollection 
to  supplement  and  to  check  his  own  memory  concerning  de 
tails.  It  is  incongruous  to  think  that  Luke  was  with  Paul 
while  writing  the  book  and  yet  failed  to  avail  himself  of  Paul's 
store  of  knowledge.  This  remark  applies  not  only  to  Paul's 
supplementing  Luke's  diary  or  recollection  of  the  "we"  sec 
tions,  but  also  to  the  rest  of  the  Paul  narrative. 

On  the  hypothesis  that  Luke  was  Paul's  companion,  Lake5 
sees  clearly  that  "if  this  be  so,  we  have  for  the  rest  of  the 
'Paul'  narrative  a  source  ready  to  our  hand  in  the  personal 
information  obtained  by  Luke  from  St.  Paul  himself,  or  from 
other  companions  of  St.  Paul  whom  he  met  in  his  society.  This 

1  Chase,  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  and  Acts,  p.  24. 

2  Intr.  to  Lit.  of  the  N.  T.,  p.  293.  3  Intr.  to  N.  T.,  p.  243. 

4  Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts,  p.  335. 

5  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Church. 


may  cover  as  much  as  Acts  9 : 1-30;  11 :  27-30;  12 :  25-31,  or 
even  more."  Most  assuredly,  and  we  must  include  the  story 
of  the  first  mission  tour  (13  and  14),  since  Luke  was  not  pres 
ent,  and  the  great  conference  in  Jerusalem  and  after  events  in 
Antioch  (15).  It  is  inconceivable  that  Luke  would  fail  to  get 
the  benefit  of  Paul's  first-hand  knowledge  of  all  this  period  if 
Paul  was  at  hand  in  Rome  with  him.  Paul  may  not  have 
been  Luke's  only  source  for  this  period,  but  he  did  have  Paul 
as  a  reservoir  of  information  on  all  disputed  points.  Carpen 
ter  feels  that  "a  certain  amount  is  surely  from  Paul  himself."  l 
We  do  not  have  to  know  how  much.  The  important  thing  is 
for  us  to  recognize  that  Luke  wrote  in  the  very  atmosphere  of 
his  hero.  Out  of  the  Pauline  environment  then  came  both  the 
Gospel  of  Luke  and  the  Acts.2  Luke  was  with  Paul  during  the 
time  when  he  was  finishing  the  Judaizing  controversy  and  was 
full  of  the  Gnostic  controversy.  He  saw  Paul  at  the  height  of 
his  powers.  It  is  small  wonder  that  in  the  Gospel  and  the 
Acts  Luke  reflects  the  Pauline  conception  of  Christ.  And  yet 
Luke  preserves  the  historical  perspective.  The  early  chapters 
of  Acts  faithfully  preserve  the  primitive  Christology,  in  essence 
the  same  as  that  of  Paul.  Carpenter3  thinks  that  Luke  the 
physician  would  be  deeply  interested  "in  the  enthusiastic  con 
versation  of  the  friend,  who  was  so  bad  a  patient,  so  lovable  a 
man."  He  would  note  the  power  of  the  Spirit  in  Paul,  his 
fondness  for  the  fellowship  of  his  friends,  his  doctrine  of  Christ, 
his  world  outlook,  his  doctrine  of  the  Kingdom,  his  eschatology. 
Paul  could  be  of  service  to  Luke  for  the  work  in  Thessalonica, 
Athens,  Corinth,  Ephesus  (Acts  17-19).  We  do  not  have  to 
think  that  Luke  simply  gives  Paul's  view  of  things.  He  used 
various  sources.  Silas  and  Timothy  could  supplement  much 
for  this  period.  And  there  was  Titus  for  the  Corinthian 
troubles,  with  whom  Luke  seems  to  have  been  associated 
(brother  and  delegate).  Aristarchus  was  with  Luke  and  Paul 
for  the  journey  to  Jerusalem  and  to  Rome  (Acts  19 :  29;  20 :  4; 
27:2;  Col.  4:10;  Philemon  24).  Luke  had  all  these  to  re 
inforce  Paul  and  himself  for  much  of  the  Acts.  Ramsay4  is 
willing  to  admit  that  in  Acts  19 :  2-16  Luke  drops  from  his  high 

I0p.  tit.,  p.  11.  *!Ud. 

3  Op.  dt.}  p.   16.    Harnack  (Acts  of  the  Apostles,  p.  232)  thinks  that 
Luke  relied  on  oral  testimony  for  all  this  part  of  the  Acts. 

4  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  272, 


standard  and  reports  "a  popular  tale,"  but  he  is  not  sure. 
Better  give  Luke  the  benefit  of  the  doubt  for  the  present,  at 
any  rate. 

Did  Luke  have  the  help  of  Paul's  Epistles?  Some  of  them 
were  written  before  Acts.  If  Acts  appeared  in  A.  D.  63  or  64, 
certainly  I  and  II  Thessalonians  had  been  written  (A.  D. 
51-53);  I  and  II  Corinthians,  Galatians,  Romans  (55-57)  were 
also  accessible  to  Luke.  Philippians,  Philemon,  Colossians, 
and  Ephesians  (61-63)  were  written  from  Rome,  apparently 
while  Luke  was  there,  though  he  seems  to  have  been  absent 
when  Philippians  was  despatched  (2:20).  But  scholars  are 
not  agreed  as  to  whether  Luke  knew  Paul's  Epistles  or  not. 
Lake1  bluntly  says:  "There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Luke 
was  acquainted  with  any  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  Acts  which  resembles  a  quotation,  and  in  relat 
ing  facts  alluded  to  in  the  Epistles  there  is  more  often  differ 
ence  than  agreement,  even  though  it  be  true  that  the  differ 
ence  is  not  always  serious."  This  is  the  opinion  of  most 
scholars — that  Luke  had  not  read  Paul's  Epistles.  It  is  only 
insisted  here  that  he  could  have  done  so  in  so  far  as  the  date  is 
concerned.  His  own  movements  would  play  some  part  in  the 
matter.  Ramsay,2  however,  says:  "But  personally  I  am  dis 
posed  to  think  that  Luke  knew  the  letters,  though  he  does 
not  make  them  his  authority,  because  he  had  still  higher  and 
better,  viz.,  Paul's  own  conversation."  With  this  opinion  I 
cordially  agree.  Luke  had  probably  read  the  Epistles  (not  the 
Pastorals),  but  he  did  not  have  them  with  him  as  he  wrote. 
He  made  no  effort  to  copy  them  or  to  square  his  narrative  with 

Some  difficulties  exist  (cf.  Gal.  2 : 1-10  and  Acts  15 : 1-30), 
which  will  come  up  for  discussion  later.  One  must  always 
bear  in  mind  the  purpose  of  Luke  in  Acts  and  the  aim  of  Paul 
in  his  Epistles.  In  Gal.  2  Paul  is  discussing  his  independence 
of  the  Twelve,  not  his  visits  to  Jerusalem.  He  is  describing 
a  private  interview  with  the  great  Trio  (Peter,  James  and 
John)  in  Jerusalem,  not  the  public  meetings  of  the  whole  Con 
ference,  as  in  Acts  15.  Thus  the  two  accounts  can  be  recon 
ciled  if  the  same  meeting  is  intended  in  both  passages.  Some 
take  Gal.  2 : 1-10  to  refer  to  another  visit.  Harnack3  finds  a 
special  Antiochian  source  for  Acts  15 : 1-30. 

1  Hastings's  Ap.  Church.  2  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  52. 

3  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  p.  199. 


But  there  is  no  denying  the  light  that  the  Acts  and  the 
Epistles  throw  upon  each  other,  as  Paley  long  ago  showed  in 
his  Horce  Paulines.  "Acts  rightly  understood  is  the  best  com 
mentary  of  the  letters  of  Paul,  and  the  letters  on  the  Acts.  If 
Luke  had  never  known  or  read  these  letters,  then  all  the  more 
remarkable  is  it  as  a  proof  of  the  truth  and  historicity  of  both 
that  the  agreement  is  so  perfect." 1  Harnack2  has  shown 
thirty-nine  striking  coincidences  between  Paul's  Epistles  and 
Acts  1-14  in  the  section  before  Luke  came  into  contact  with 
Paul.  The  agreement,  Harnack  argues,  "is  so  extensive  and 
so  detailed  as  to  exclude  all  wild  hypotheses  concerning  those 
passages  of  the  Acts  that  are  without  attestation  in  those 
Epistles."3  And  yet  Luke  has  remained  himself  everywhere.4 
His  style  is  his  own,  his  intellectual  independence  is  main 
tained,  he  is  not  obsessed  by  Paul  so  as  to  lose  his  perspective. 
"One  of  the  most  assured  results  of  recent  research  is  that  he 
was  not  a  Paulinist  masquerading  as  a  historian." 5  The  spirit 
of  Paul  is  in  the  Acts  and  Paul's  picture  is  drawn  on  bold  can 
vas,  but  Luke  has  drawn  the  portrait  in  his  own  manner. 

4.  Other  First-Hand  Reporters. — It  is  certain  that  Luke  was 
Paul's  companion  and  so  had  his  own  notes  and  recollections 
for  that  portion  of  the  history.  It  is  certain,  also,  that  he 
enjoyed  the  benefit  of  Paul's  own  suggestions  for  the  same 
period  and  for  the  Paul  narrative,  where  Luke  was  not  a  par 
ticipant.  Besides,  Luke  had  access  to  others  of  the  Pauline 
circle,  Aristarchus,  Silas,  Erastus,  Timothy,  Titus,  Gaius, 
Sopater,  Tychicus,  Trophimus,  Mark,  Demas,  Epaphras, 
Mnason,  and  possibly  Barnabas,  Symeon  Niger,  Lycius  of 
Cyrene,  and  Manaen.  We  are  certain  of  all  in  this  Pauline 
group  save  the  names  beginning  with  Barnabas.  If  the  Bezan 
text  is  correct  in  Acts  1 1 : 28,  then  Luke  knew  Barnabas  and 
all  those  named  in  Acts  13  : 1.  Thus  we  can  see  Luke's  sources 
for  two-thirds  of  the  Acts,  for  nearly  all  of  chapters  9-28  (ex 
cepting  Peter's  ministry  in  Lydda,  Joppa,  Caesarea,  and  Jeru 
salem).  That  of  Barnabas  in  Csesarea  and  Jerusalem  could 
have  come  from  Paul,  if  not  from  Barnabas. 

So  far  so  good.     But  what  about  the  rest  ?     "  The  problems 

1  Ramsay,  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  52. 

2  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  264-274. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  272.  <  IUd.,  p.  274. 
6  Moffatt,  Mr.  to  Lit.  of  N.  T.,  p.  281. 


presented  by  the  earlier  chapters  are  much  more  complicated." l 
Here  again  we  are  confronted  with  the  problem  of  oral  or 
written  sources.  Lake2  holds  that  it  "seems  quite  impossible 
to  say  whether  he  was  using  written  sources."  There  is,  un 
doubtedly,  an  Antiochian  tradition  and  a  Jerusalem  tradition 
for  the  material  that  Luke  employs  for  chapters  1-12  (save 
the  story  of  Paul's  conversion,  9 : 1-30).  But  it  cannot  as  yet 
be  shown  that  it  was  all  written  unless  C.  C.  Torrey  is  right  in 
his  theory  of  an  Aramaic  document  for  chapters  1-15,  about 
which  we  shall  have  more  directly. 

But  we  can  feel  our  way  backward  in  Acts  by  means  of 
persons  with  whom  Luke  came  into  personal  contact.  Cor 
nelius,  if  still  living,  could  certainly  tell  Luke  of  the  work  of 
grace  in  Csesarea  when  Peter  came.  We  know  that  Luke  met 
James,  the  brother  of  Jesus,  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  21 : 18)  and 
the  other  elders.  James  was  present  during  the  days  of  the 
great  Pentecostal  outpouring  (Acts  1 : 14)  and  could  give  Luke 
valuable  data  for  this  epochal  event.  It  is  not  known  that 
Luke  met  Peter  in  Jerusalem  or  in  Rome,  though  both  are 
possible  occurrences.  In  that  case,  Peter  himself  would  be 
Luke's  main  source.  But  we  do  know  that  Luke  was  with 
Mark  in  Rome.  Mark,  as  the  disciple  of  Peter  and  cousin  of 
Barnabas,  could  furnish  testimony  concerning  chapters  9 :  31- 
13 : 13.  And  there  were  Philip  and  his  daughters,  who  dwelt 
in  Csesarea.  We  know  that  Luke  made  a  visit  to  this  home 
(Acts  21 : 8)  on  his  way  to  Jerusalem.  During  the  two  years 
in  Csesarea  Luke  had  abundant  opportunities  to  learn  from 
Philip  the  story  of  his  work  in  Samaria  and  Philistia  (chapter 
8)  as  well  as  the  appointment  of  the  seven  and  the  career 
of  Stephen  (chapters  6  and  7).  Besides,  Paul  was  present  at 
the  delivery  of  Stephen's  speech  and  at  his  stoning  (Acts 
8 : 1 ;  26 : 10)  and  could  help  Luke  materially  at  this  point.  In 
all  these  instances  notes  may  have  been  made  concerning  the 
various  sections,  and  turned  over  to  Luke,  or  he  may  have 
made  notes  of  his  conversations.  There  is  no  way  to  decide. 

There  remains  the  period  covered  by  chapters  1-5.  It  is 
in  this  section,  in  particular,  that  Luke  confronts  supernatural 
phenomena,  and  where  modern  writers  find  most  difficulty  in 
crediting  his  narrative.  Carpenter3  is  sure  that  Luke  worked 

*  Lake,  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Church.  2  Ibid. 

3  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  p.  23. 


backward  from  Paul  to  Pentecost.  He  agrees  with  Doctor 
Figgis  "that  it  is  right  to  begin  history  at  this  end,"  as,  he 
argues,  "  Peter  and  Paul  did  in  their  preaching."  " The  thinker 
instantly  works  backward."  This  is  an  important  point  and 
confronts  us  squarely  as  we  face  Acts  1-5.  "Did  S.  Paul,  at 
his  conversion,  or  before,  or  after,  engage  for  his  own  satisfac 
tion  in  any  kind  of  historical  research?  And  if  so,  how  thor 
oughly  did  he  (and,  we  may  add,  S.  Luke)  carry  through  the 
process?"1  Paul  knows  the  fundamental  facts  of  the  life, 
death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  whether  he  obtained  them  by 
personal  acquaintance  with  Jesus  or  from  others.2  Paul  stands 
in  the  path  of  the  "Christ-Myth  theory"  and  in  the  way  of 
the  idea  of  Loisy3  that  "Pauline  Christianity  was  simply  a 
mystery-cult,  and  that  Paul  cared  no  more,  and  perhaps  be 
lieved  no  more,  about  the  historicity  of  Jesus  than  the  Osiris- 
worshipper  cared  or  believed  about  the  historical  existence  of 
Osiris."4  As  to  Pentecost,  Carpenter5  feels  certain  that  "the 
physician  as  an  educated  man,  with  at  least  something  of  the 
historical  spirit,  would  inquire  how  and  when  the  immanence 
of  the  Spirit  in  the  community  had  begun." 

Harnack6  thinks  that  nothing  clear  can  be  learned  concerning 
the  sources  of  Luke  for  the  early  chapters.  He  looks  with 
suspicion  on  chapter  1  as  a  late  legend,  and  sees  a  doublet  in 
chapters  2  and  3-5,  as  does  Lake.  Harnack  manifestly  has  a 
lower  opinion  of  Acts  1-12  than  he  has  for  the  worth  of  13-28. 
Ramsay7  admits  the  difficulty  raised  for  modern  people  con 
cerning  the  miracles  and  demons  in  passages  like  Acts  5 : 12 
and  8:7.  "  It  is  matter  for  a  special  book  to  study  the  author 
ities  whom  Luke  used  for  the  first  part  of  his  history." 8  He 
argues  for  patience  about  psychic  phenomena,  and  pleads  that 
Luke  must  be  credited  with  special  interest  in  such  cases,  since 
he  was  a  physician  and  a  scientist.  As  a  historian  he  would  be 
careful  to  weigh  the  cases  that  he  records.  Ramsay9  thinks 
that  Luke  used  some  official  data  or  acta  of  the  early  Christian 

1  Ibid.,  p.  25.  2  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  pp.  28-32. 

8  Hibbert  Journal,  Oct.,  1911. 

4  Carpenter,  op.  cit.,  p.  25.  6  Ibid.,  p.  21: 

6  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  p.  163. 

7  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  200. 

8  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  205. 

•  Expositor,  VII,  7,  pp.  172  f.,  262  f.,  358  f.,  450  f. 


community  in  Jerusalem  for  the  record  in  Acts  1-5  with  the  full 
report  of  Peter's  great  sermon  at  Pentecost,  "which  is  in  some 
ways  one  of  the  most  archaic  passages  in  the  New  Testament." l 
Ramsay  holds  that  Philip  could  have  reported  Peter's  speech, 
though  hardly  Acts  2 : 1-13. 

The  earlier  chapters  of  Acts  show  plainly  enough  that  Luke 
was  not  a  participant.  There  is  care  for  accuracy  about  the 
historical  origins  of  Christianity.  "The  subject  in  them  is 
handled  in  a  vague  way  with  a  less  vigorous  and  nervous 
grasp."2  As  compared  with  the  Gospel,  Luke  "had  not  the 
advantage  of  formal  historical  narratives  such  as  he  mentions 
for  the  period  described  in  the  First  Book  (the  Gospel)."3 
However,  one  is  not  entitled  to  discredit  Luke's  narrative  in 
Acts  1-5,  since  he  had  ready  access  to  numerous  converts  at 
the  great  Pentecost.  Prejudice  against  Luke  in  these  chapters 
is  primarily  prejudice  against  the  supernatural  demonstration 
of  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  is  on  a  par  with  prejudice 
against  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  and  his  Resurrection  from 
the  dead,  all  of  which  events  are  recorded  in  Luke's  Gospel 
after  due  research  and  reflection.  We  shall  see  whether  Luke 
is  a  mere  recorder  of  tales,  like  Herodotus. 

5.  The  Theory  of  an  Aramaic  Document  for  Chapters  1-15.— 
We  know  that  Luke  was  acquainted  with  Aramaic,  from  his 
use  of  original  sources  for  Luke  1  and  2  (except  1 : 1-4).  In 
Acts  1 : 19  and  9 :  36  Luke  translates  Aramaic  words.  "  Knowl 
edge  of  Aramaic  and  the  ability  to  translate  an  easy  Aramaic 
text  may  well  be  assumed  in  a  native  of  Antioch,  and  one  who 
was  for  many  years  a  companion  of  St.  Paul." 4  Harnack  con 
siders  the  results  of  present  knowledge  "ambiguous":  "There 
are,  on  the  one  hand,  weighty  reasons  for  the  conclusion  that 
St.  Luke  in  the  first  half  of  the  Acts  has  translated  an  Aramaic 
source,  and  yet  it  is  impossible  to  refute  the  theory  that  he 
was  only  dependent  upon  oral  information." 5  Harnack  feels 
sure  that  Luke  did  not  follow  a  single  Aramaic  source.  He  is 
positive6  that  Luke  did  not  follow  a  written  Greek  source  for 

1  Lake,  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Church. 

2  Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  19.  3  Ibid.,  p.  20. 

4  Harnack,  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  119.  McLachlan  (St.  Luke;  the  Man 
and  His  Work)  devotes  chap.  II  to  "Luke  the  Linguist."  He  argues  that 
Luke  knew  something  of  Latin,  Aramaic,  and  Hebrew,  but  was  not  expert 
in  them  as  in  Greek. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  119.  6  Ibid.,  p.  116. 


this  part  of  the  Acts.  Lake,1  per  contra,  is  confident  that  Luke 
had  a  written  Greek  source  for  Acts  3  and  4,  possibly  5,  and 
probably  8 :  5-40.  So  the  doctors  disagree  again. 

Blass2  suggests  that  Mark  wrote  out  the  first  narrative  of  the 
apostolic  period  in  Aramaic,  and  that  Luke  employed  this 
Aramaic  document  for  Acts  1-12.  "I  say  that  the  language  of 
the  Acts  is  markedly  different  from  that  of  the  later  chapters: 
in  the  former  Aramaisms  abound,  in  the  latter  they  are  com 
paratively  very  scarce;  from  these  facts  I  argue  that  the  second 
part  is  an  independent  work  by  Luke,  but  the  former  depends 
on  an  Aramaic  source."3  Blass  thinks  it  doubtful  if  Luke 
knew  Aramaic,  and  thinks  it  likely  that  he  had  an  interpreter 
for  Mark's  book.  Nestle4  had  suggested  a  Hebrew  document 
for  the  early  part  of  Acts.  Moffatt8  states  his  view  thus: 
"Oral  tradition  of  a  heterogeneous  and  even  of  a  legendary 
character  may  be  held  to  explain  most,  if  not  all,  of  the  data. 
There  is  fair  ground  for  conjecturing,  however,  that  Luke  used 
and  translated  an  Aramaic  source."  But  no  one  has  been 
able  to  show  specific  Aramaisms  to  any  considerable  extent. 
The  first  half  of  Acts  seems  as  distinctly  Lukan  as  the  second. 

C.  C.  Torrey  argued  in  1912  that  "the  compiler  of  the  Third 
Gospel  was  an  accomplished  translator  of  both  Hebrew  and 
Aramaic." 6  He  returns  to  the  subject  in  his  monograph,  "The 
Composition  and  Date  of  Acts"  (1916),  and  attempts  to  show 
that  Acts  1-15  is  translated  from  an  Aramaic  document  by 
Luke,  the  author  of  the  "we"  sections  and  of  the  Third  Gos 
pel.  "The  whole  book,  however,  shows  unmistakable  uni 
formity  of  vocabulary  and  phraseology,  so  that  it  is  obvious 
(to  him  who  recognizes  the  Semitic  source)  that  the  author  of 
16-28  was  the  translator  of  1-15."  Professor  Torrey  proceeds 
to  give  what  he  considers  numerous  "  translation  Aramaisms," 
not  Hebraisms.  "The  truth  is  that  the  language  of  all  fifteen 
chapters  is  translation-Greek  through  and  through,  generally 
preserving  even  the  order  of  words." 7  It  may  be  admitted  at 
once  that,  if  Torrey  proves  his  case,  the  question  of  the  sources 

1  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Church. 

2  Philology  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  141,  193  f.,  201. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  194.  4  Expositor,  1895,  p.  238. 

5  Intr.  to  Lit.  of  N.  T.,  p.  290. 

6  Studies  in  the  History  of  Religions,  Presented  to  Crawford  H.  Toy,  pp. 

7  Op.  tit.,  p.  7. 


of  Acts  is  greatly  simplified.  The  Aramaic  document  (Mark  ?), 
Luke  and  Paul  would  cover  the  whole  story.  It  must  be  said, 
however,  that  Torrey  apparently  weakens  his  argument  by 
what  he  calls  "especially  striking  cases  of  mistranslation  in 
Acts  1-15." l  The  Aramaic  list  is  wholly  hypothetical.  The 
supposed  mistranslation  is  not  very  convincing.  Burkitt  re 
views  Torrey 's  pamphlet  in  the  July,  1919,  Journal  of  Theologi 
cal  Studies.  He  says  (p.  326) :  "  I  venture  to  submit  that  Pro 
fessor  Torrey  has  not  produced  a  compelling  demonstration," 
though  he  recognizes  "an  occasional  use  by  St.  Luke  of  Ara 
maic  sources,  written  or  oral"  (p.  329).  This  is  precisely  my 
own  feeling  in  the  matter.  Besides,  Torrey  (pp.  14  ff.)  presses 
entirely  too  far  the  use  of  "his  name"  in  Acts  3 : 16  as  "a  bit 
of  popular  superstition,"  "a  certain  quasi-magical  power  in 
the  Name  of  Jesus."  The  trouble  with  this  view  is  that  in 
the  Septuagint  and  in  the  papyri  "name"  occurs  in  the  sense 
of  "person"  with  no  necessary  "magical"  sense.2  Torrey 
claims  too  much  and  tries  to  prove  too  much.  He  puts  all  his 
eggs  in  one  basket.  But,  as  the  case  now  stands,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  an  Aramaic  document  (or  documents)  is  possi 
ble  as  one  of  the  sources  for  the  early  chapters  of  Acts.  I  can 
not  yet  agree  that  Luke  confined  himself  to  one  document  for 
the  early  chapters  of  Acts  when  he  had  access  to  so  many  per 
sons  who  knew  various  parts  of  the  story. 

Torrey's  argument  for  an  Aramaic  source  for  Acts  1-15  has 
started  discussion  on  an  extensive  scale.  Foakes-Jackson  in 
the  Harvard  Theological  Renew  for  October,  1917,  feels  con 
vinced  by  Torrey's  arguments  that  there  were  Aramaic  sources 
for  the  first  part  of  Acts.  "  That  nothing  but  Aramaic  sources 
were  used  is,  I  consider,  not  proven.  That  there  was  only  one 
document  appears  to  me  extremely  doubtful"  (p.  360).  He 
does  think,  however,  that  we  must  agree  that  Acts  was  com 
pleted  by  A.  D.  64,  and  hence  that  Luke  made  no  use  of  Jose- 
phus,  and  that  the  Acts  is  in  no  sense  a  Tendenz  writing  (p.  352). 
In  the  January,  1918,  issue  of  the  same  journal  W.  J.  Wilson 
says  of  Torrey's  work  (p.  74):  "By  his  demonstration  of  a 

1  Op.  at.,  pp.  10-22. 

2  Cf .  Deissmann,  Bible  Studies,  pp.  146,  197.     An  inscription  of  Caria 
has  efc  rb  TOO  9soO  Svoywc,  where  a  purchaser  acts  as  the  representative  of 
Zeus.     The  papyri  show  ovojjuz  in  sense  of  person.    Cf.  B.  U.  113.  11  (143 
A.  D.),  !*<fcoT(p  3von«Tt.     So  Fay,  p.  531,  ii.  9  f .  (Ill  A.  D.),  *pb?  Ixcwrev  Svo{jux. 


document  in  Aramaic,  underlying  Acts  1 :  lb-15 : 35  and  trans 
lated  by  Luke  with  painful  fidelity  into  Greek,  he  has  opened 
up  a  whole  new  field  for  the  criticism  of  the  Book  of  Acts." 
He  then  proceeds  to  make  "some  observations"  on  the  basis  of 
the  Aramaic  source.  In  the  Harvard  Theological  Review  for 
July,  1918,  W.  J.  Wilson  replies  to  Foakes- Jackson  in  defense 
of  Torrey's  plea  for  a  single  Aramaic  document  for  Acts  1-15. 
He  concludes  that  "the  argument  for  the  new  theory  appears 
very  strong  indeed"  (p.  335).  Bacon  accepted  Torrey's  theory 
as  a  demonstration  (American  Journal  of  Theology,  January, 
1918).  In  the  January,  1919,  issue  of  this  quarterly  Torrey 
discusses  "Fact  and  Fancy  in  Theories  Concerning  Acts"  and 
answers  the  criticisms  of  his  critics.  As  has  already  been 
noted,  Burkitt  replies  to  Torrey  in  the  July,  1919,  Journal  of 
Theological  Studies.  So  the  matter  rests  for  the  present.1 
However  it  may  be  decided,  the  whole  discussion  has  strength 
ened  the  argument  for  the  early  date  and  historical  worth  of 
the  Acts,  particularly  the  early  chapters  which  were  mainly 
under  attack. 

1McLachlan  (St.  Luke,  p.  67)  thinks  that  the  Aramaic  source  is  es 



"Luke  the  Beloved  Physician"  (Col.  4: 14) 
"Physician,  Heal  Thyself"  (Luke  4 : 23) 

Can  it  be  shown  that  Luke  deserves  to  be  called  a  man  of 
science  ? 

1.  The  Point  at  Issue. — In  Chapter  I.  4  it  was  shown  that 
the  companion  of  Paul  who  wrote  the  Gospel  and  Acts  was  a 
physician.  The  only  known  friend  and  companion  of  Paul 
who  was  a  physician  is  Luke.  The  proof  seems  complete,  but 
it  is  now  argued  by  Lake  and  by  Cadbury  that  Hobart  and 
Harnack  make  too  much  of  the  medical  terms  in  the  Lukan 
writings.  Lake1  sums  up  his  view  thus:  "That  Luke  was  a 
physician  is  argued  by  Harnack — following  up  and  greatly 
improving  on  the  methods  of  Hobart — on  the  ground  of  his 
use  of  medical  language.  The  argument  is,  of  course,  cumula 
tive,  and  cannot  be  epitomized.  It  is  beyond  doubt  that 
Luke  frequently  employs  language  which  can  be  illustrated 
from  Galen  and  other  medical  writers.  The  weak  point  is 
that  no  sufficient  account  has  been  taken  of  the  fact  that  much 
of  this  language  can  probably  be  shown  from  the  pages  of 
Lucian,  Dion  of  Prusa,  etc.,  to  have  been  part  of  the  vocabu 
lary  of  any  educated  Greek." 

It  should  be  admitted  at  once  that  the  proof  that  Luke  wrote 
the  Gospel  and  Acts  is  complete  without  the  linguistic  argu 
ment  concerning  medical  terms.  That  argument  simply  adds 
to  the  general  effect.  We  know  from  Paul  that  Luke  was  a 
physician,  and  we  are  naturally  interested  in  a  physician's  use 
of  medical  language.  Other  people  employ  medical  terms. 
We  find  such  language  in  the  Gospels  of  Mark,  Matthew  and 
John.  Lake  and  Cadbury  rather  miss  the  mark  in  their  reply 
to  Hobart  and  Harnack.  It  is  not  the  mere  tabulation  of 
medical  words  that  have  entered  the  general  vocabulary  that 
is  pertinent.  "When  a  physician  writes  an  historical  work  it 
does  not  necessarily  follow  that  his  profession  shows  itself  in 

1  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Church. 


his  writing;  yet  it  is  only  natural  for  one  to  look  for  traces  of 
the  author's  medical  profession  in  such  a  work."1  Harnack 
notes  six  ways  in  which  a  physician  will  be  likely  to  betray 
his  profession.  Medical  points  may  determine  the  narrative 
(disease  and  its  treatment),  preference  may  be  shown  for 
stories  of  healing,  the  language  may  be  colored  by  technical 
medical  terms,  traces  of  medical  diagnosis  may  occur,  medical 
phraseology  may  appear  apart  from  cases  of  healing,  and  where 
the  writer  is  an  eye-witness  medical  traits  are  particularly 
noticeable.  Harnack  holds  that  in  all  these  ways  Luke  reveals 
his  medical  side.  Hobart  divides  his  book,  The  Medical  Lan 
guage  of  St.  Luke,  into  two  parts  ("Medical  Language  Em 
ployed  in  the  Account  of  Miracles  of  Healing"  and  that  "Used 
Outside  of  Medical  Subjects").  He  gives  numerous  details 
from  Greek  medical  writers. 

Cadbury2  argues  that  the  medical  bias  in  Luke's  vocabulary 
must  be  more  considerable  than  in  that  of  non-medical  writers 
like  Lucian  to  be  of  value  as  an  argument.  The  reply  is  that 
it  is  not  merely  a  matter  of  vocabulary,  but  of  medical  interest, 
that  crops  out  in  incidental  ways.  Jerome  (Comm.  on  Isaiah 
43:6)  says  that  ancient  writers  assert  that  Luke  "was  very 
learned  in  the  medical  art." 3  Naylor4  finds  Luke  the  "  trained 
physician  and  a  Greek — probably  the  only  one  in  the  Christian 
Church  in  his  time."  He  concludes  that  Luke  differed  widely 
from  "the  spirit  and  teaching  of  Greek  medicine  from  Hippoc 
rates  down  to  his  own  day  "  because  he  reports  cases  of  demo 
niacal  possession  and  cure.  But  Homan  observes  that  "he 
nowhere  claims  for  himself  the  possession  of  miraculous  powers 
or  intimates  their  exercise  by  him."  Homan5  adds  that  Luke's 
report  of  miracles  was  "a  possible  compromise  between  the 
science  of  the  physician  and  the  faith  of  the  disciple."  But 
Homan6  attempts  to  show  "that  Luke  must  be  ranked  as  one 
of  the  choicest  medical  minds  known  to  any  age."  "In  short, 
it  is  felt  that  the  time  has  come  when  physicians  should  take 

1  Harnack,  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  175. 

2  Style  and  Literary  Method  of  Luke,  p.  50. 

3  Medicines  artis  fuisse  sdentissimum. 

4  "Luke  the  Physician  and  Ancient  Medicine"  (Hibbert  Journal,  Octo 
ber,  1909,  p.  40). 

6  Luke  the  Greek  Physician,  p.  7. 
6  Luke  the  Greek  Physician,  p.  13. 


steps  to  reclaim  Luke  as  one  of  their  own  in  the  name  of  that 
profession  of  which  he  was  one  of  the  greatest  ornaments." 

If  it  be  said  that  it  is  merely  the  wild  assumption  of  a  mod 
ern  apologist  to  say  that  Luke  was  in  any  true  sense  a  scientist, 
it  is  refreshing  to  note  some  remarks  by  the  late  Sir  William 
Osier,  M.D.,  F.R.S.,  Regius  Professor  of  Medicine  in  the  Uni 
versity  of  Oxford,  in  a  recent  (May  16,  1919)  presidential 
address  before  the  Classical  Association  on  The  Old  Humanities 
and  the  New  Science,  in  which  he  says:  "And  the  glories  of 
Greek  science  should  be  opened  in  a  sympathetic  way  to 
'Greats'  men"  (p.  28).  "Few  'Greats'  men,  I  fear,  could  tell 
why  Hippocrates  is  a  living  force  to-day,  or  why  a  modern 
scientific  physician  would  feel  more  at  home  with  Erasistratus 
and  Herophilus  at  Alexandria,  or  with  Galen  at  Pergamos, 
than  at  any  period  in  our  story  up  to,  say,  Harvey"  (p.  19). 
"In  biology  Aristotle  speaks  for  the  first  time  the  language  of 
modern  science,  and  indeed  he  seems  to  have  been  first  and 
foremost  a  biologist,  and  his  natural  history  studies  influenced 
profoundly  his  sociology,  his  psychology,  and  his  philosophy 
in  general"  (p.  20).  Sir  William  Osier  laments  modern  igno 
rance  of  the  Greek  scientists  and  physicians.  "And  yet  the 
methods  of  these  men  exorcised  vagaries  and  superstitions 
from  the  human  mind,  and  pointed  to  a  clear  knowledge  of 
the  laws  of  nature"  (p.  20).  "To  observation  and  seasoned 
thought  the  Greek  added  experiment,  but  never  fully  used  it 
in  biology,  an  instrument  which  has  made  science  productive, 
and  to  which  the  modern  world  owes  its  civilization"  (p.  24). 
Luke  lived  in  the  atmosphere  of  Greek  science.  But  Luke 
cannot  be  taken  from  Christ,  even  in  the  name  of  science. 
He  brought  his  science  and  laid  it  at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  the 
Great  Physician.  He  preached  the  Gospel  and  practised  the 
science  of  medicine,  as  many  a  man  has  done  since  Luke's  day. 
But  now  let  us  see  the  illustrations  of  Luke's  medical  knowl 
edge  in  his  writings. 

2.  Changes  from  Mark's  Account. — Harnack1  has  grouped 
the  examples  from  Hobart  with  great  skill.  The  point  to 
observe  here  is  whether  Luke  made  any  changes  that  a  physi 
cian  would  be  likely  to  desire.  We  have  seen  already  (Chap 
ter  I.  4)  that  in  Luke  8 : 43  Mark's  caustic  comment  that  the 
poor  woman  "had  spent  all  that  she  had,  and  was  nothing 
1  Luke  the  Physician,  pp.  182-8. 


bettered,  but  rather  grew  worse"  (Mark  5  :  26),  has  been  soft 
ened  to  "she  was  not  able  to  be  healed  by  any'*  (a  chronic  case 
for  which  physicians  were  not  to  blame).  But  this  striking 
case  does  not  stand  alone. 

In  the  account  of  the  demoniac  in  the  synagogue  (Mark  1  :  26 
=  Luke  4  :  35)  Luke  adds  "having  done  him  no  hurt,"  showing 
the  physician's  interest  in  the  details  of  the  case.  Luke  also 
noted  the  fall  of  the  man,  "threw  him  down  in  the  midst." 
One  can  observe  all  through  the  Gospel  Luke's  pleasure  in  pic 
turing  Christ  as  the  physician. 

The  healing  of  Simon's  mother-in-law  (Mark  1  :  30  f  .  = 
Luke  4  :  38  f  .  =  Matt.  8  :  14  f  .)  has  some  striking  touches. 
Luke  alone  notes  that  she  "was  holden  with  a  great  fever."1 
Precisely  this  medical  phrase  of  "great  fever"  occurs  in  Galen 
and  Hippocrates.  Galen  says  that  Greek  physicians  divided 
fevers  into  "great"2  and  "small."3  Luke,  like  a  doctor,  adds 
also  two  items  concerning  Christ's  method  of  treatment.  "  And 
he  stood  over  her,"  4  as  if  in  careful  contemplation  of  the  symp 
toms  of  the  patient  by  way  of  diagnosis.  One  thinks  of  the 
famous  picture  "The  Doctor,"  wherein  the  physician  sits 
with  his  head  in  his  hand  and  watches  the  rapid  breathing  of 
the  sick  child  on  the  bed.  Luke  adds  "and  rebuked  the 
fever,"  showing  that  Jesus  spoke  words  of  authority  and  cheer 
like  the  wise  physician.  Jesus  spoke  not  for  mere  psychologi 
cal  effect  on  the  patient,  but  also  to  show  his  instant  mastery 
of  the  disease.  So  Luke  observes  that  the  fever  left  her  "im 
mediately."6  It  is  not  a  matter  of  vocabulary  here,  but  we 
note  the  physician's  interest  and  insight  that  give  these  touches 
to  the  story  not  present  in  Mark  and  Matthew. 

The  "leper"  (Mark  1:40  =  Luke  5:12  =  Matt.  8:2)  is 
described  by  Luke  as  "a  man  full  of  leprosy,"6  a  very  bad 
case.  "This  particular  is  given  only  by  the  beloved  physi 
cian.  His  face  and  his  hands  would  be  covered  by  ulcers  and 
sores,  so  that  every  one  could  see  that  the  hideous  disease 
was  at  a  very  advanced  stage."7  In  such  a  severe  case, 
strange  to  say,  the  law  allowed  the  leper  to  have  freedom  to 
come  and  go  (cf.  Lev.  13:12f.).  Once  again  the  physician 
describes  the  case  as  Mark  and  Matthew  do  not. 

VO>  ai-rijq. 
vfjp  xX-fjpTjs  Xlicpa?.         7  Plummer,  in  loco. 


In  Luke  5:18  (=  Mark  2:3  =  Matt.  9:2)  we  have  the 
phrase  "  a  man  that  was  palsied  "  l  rather  than  the  popular 
term  "paralytic"2  of  Mark  and  Matthew.  "St.  Luke's  use 
is  in  strict  agreement  with  that  of  medical  writers."3  Luke 
never  employs  the  popular  term  for  this  disease,  but  always 
the  medical  phrase. 

In  the  story  of  the  man  with  the  withered  hand  (Luke  6  :  6 
=  Mark  3:1  =  Matt.  12  :  10),  Luke,  with  a  physician's  eye  for 
details  of  diagnosis,  notes  that  it  was  his  "right  hand."  So 
in  Luke  22:50  (=  Mark  14:47  =  Matt.  26:51)  Luke  first 
notes  it  is  the  "right  ear"  of  the  servant  of  the  high  priest 
that  is  cut  off.  He  was  followed  later  in  this  item  by  John 
(18  :  10),  who  also  gives  the  name  Malchus.  But  in  the  case 
of  Malchus  Luke  alone  adds  "And  he  touched  his  ear,  and 
healed  him"  (Luke  22  :  51),  a  miracle  of  surgery  that  evidently 
interested  him. 

In  the  account  of  the  Gadarene  demoniac  (Luke  8  :  27  = 
Mark  5:2  =  Matt.  8:28),  Luke  alone  observes  that  "for  a 
long  time  he  had  worn  no  clothes"  (the  physician's  care  again). 
Both  Mark  (5  :  15)  and  Luke  (8  :  35)  note  that,  when  cured, 
he  is  "clothed  and  in  his  right  mind." 

In  the  story  of  the  raising  of  Jairus's  daughter  (Luke  8  :  55 
=  Mark  5  :  41  f.  =  Matt.  9  :  25),  Luke  alone  gives  the  detail 
that  Jesus  "commanded  that  something  be  given  her  to  eat." 
Once  more  the  physician's  interest  in  the  child's  welfare  appears 
(cf.  Acts  9:  18). 

In  the  case  of  the  epileptic  boy  (Luke  9  :  38  f  .  =  Mark  9  :  17  f  . 
=  Matt.  17  :  15),  each  Gospel  describes  the  symptoms  differ 
ently.  It  was  a  hard  case,  that  baffled  the  disciples.  Luke 
represents  the  father  as  beseeching  Jesus  "to  look  upon  my 
son,"  4  as  if  for  a  fresh  diagnosis  of  the  case  after  the  failure  of 
the  disciples.  Alas,  how  many  of  us  know  what  it  is  to  see 
the  consulting  physician  called  in  !  Luke  adds  the  pathetic 
plea,  "for  he  is  mine  only  child."  Hobart  adds  also:  "It  is 
worthy  of  note  that  Aretseus,  a  physician  about  Luke's  time, 
admits  the  possibility  of  this  disease  being  produced  by  dia 
bolical  agency." 

8  Hobart,  Medical  Language  of  St.  Luke,  p.  6. 
4  impxfclxzi.    Hobart  cites  this  word  and  ^yt?  dcicoxwpeZ  as  medical  terms 


Once  more  Luke  (18 :  25  =  Mark  10 :  25  =  Matt.  19 :  24)  em 
ploys  a  different  word  for  "  needle," l  the  surgeon's  needle,  not 
the  ordinary  needle,2  as  in  Mark  and  Matthew.  Luke  employs 
the  word  that  Galen  uses  for  the  surgeon's  needle,  a  distinct 
trace  of  medical  authorship. 

The  point  about  these  changes  lies  in  the  professional  inter 
est  of  the  physician,  not  in  the  linguistic  improvements  of  an 
educated  man.  Luke  did  make  many  such  changes  because 
of  his  literary  taste,  but  another  explanation  clearly  holds 
here.  The  argument  stands,  but  it  does  not  stand  alone, 
strong  as  it  is. 

3.  Items  Peculiar  to  Luke's  Gospel. — Luke  reveals  a  pro 
fessional  interest  in  medical  matters  in  the  portions  of  the 
Gospel  which  he  alone  has.  Hayes3  has  made  an  admirable 
summary  of  this  argument.  Luke  was  a  medical  evangelist 
and  had  a  vital  interest  in  both  forms  of  the  work  of  Christ 
(teaching  and  healing).  "And  he  sent  them  forth  to  preach 
the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  to  heal  the  sick"  (Luke  9:2).  So 
Christ  commanded  the  Twelve  as  he  sent  them  on  the  tour  of 
Galilee,  as  Matthew  (10 :  8)  also  gives:  "Heal  the  sick,  raise  the 
dead,  cleanse  the  lepers,  cast  out  demons."  But  Luke  alone 
gives  the  following.  To  the  seventy  Jesus  said:  "And  heal 
the  sick  that  are  therein,  and  say  unto  them,  The  Kingdom 
of  God  is  come  nigh  unto  you"  (Luke  10 :  9).  When  the  sev 
enty  returned  from  their  tour  of  Judea,  they  say  to  Jesus: 
"Lord,  even  the  demons  are  subject  unto  us  in  thy  name" 
(Luke  10:17). 

In  Christ's  Messianic  sermon  at  Nazareth  he  had  quoted 
Isaiah  40: 1  f.,  and  applied  to  himself  the  mission  "to  preach 
good  tidings  to  the  poor"  and  "recovery  of  sight  to  the  blind." 
Luke  makes  a  specialty  of  the  double  mission  of  Jesus  to  heal 
both  soul  and  body.  In  harmony  with  this  conception  it  must 
be  noted  that  Luke  alone  gives  Christ's  proverb,  "Physician, 
heal  thyself"  (Luke  4:  23).  Galen  speaks  of  a  physician  who 
should  have  cured  himself  before  practising  on  his  patients. 
The  saying  was  evidently  common  with  physicians  and  Christ's 
use  of  it  interested  Luke.  We  to-day  say  that  a  doctor  ought 
to  take  his  own  medicine.  The  Chinese  do  not  pay  physicians 

1  peX6viQ.    A  magic  papyrus  (P.  Lond.,  121,  442,  3  A.  D.)  has  the  more 
general  use  of  the  word. 

2  3  Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts,  pp.  224  f. 


if  the  patient  gets  sick,  but  only  when  he  is  well.  The  Chris 
tian  doctor  to-day  in  China  has  an  open  door  to  the  souls  of 
the  people. 

Luke  uses  a  number  of  general  expressions,  as  do  the  other 
Gospels,  that  picture  the  vast  extent  of  Christ's  work  of  heal 
ing  (cf.  Luke  4  :  40  f  .  ;  5  :  15  f  .  ;  6  :  17-19;  7  :  21  ;  13  :  32).  He 
has  six  miracles  not  in  the  other  Gospels,  and  all  but  one  (the 
draft  of  fishes,  5:1-11)  are  miracles  of  healing  (the  son  of 
the  widow  of  Nain,  7:11-17;  the  woman  with  the  spirit  of 
infirmity,  13:10-17;  the  man  with  the  dropsy,  14:1-6;  the 
cleansing  of  the  ten  lepers,  17  :  11-19;  the  restoration  of  Mal- 
chus's  ear,  22:51). 

In  each  instance  we  see  signs  of  the  physician's  love  of  de 
tails  about  the  case  and  the  cure.  The  son  of  the  widow  of 
Nain  "sat  up"  in  the  bier  like  a  patient  in  bed,  to  the  con 
sternation  of  the  pall-bearers  (Luke  7:15f.).  The  word  for 
"sat  up"1  is  used  by  medical  writers  in  the  intransitive  sense 
for  sitting  up  in  bed.2 

In  the  case  of  the  woman  with  the  spirit  of  infirmity  Luke 
gives  an  exact  description  of  her  disease  (curvature  of  the 
spine)  and  of  the  cure  in  technical  language:  "She  was  bowed 
together,3  and  could  in  no  wise  lift  herself  up."  4  "And  imme 
diately  she  was  made  straight."5  This  verb  is  common  in  the 
Septuagmt,  but  medical  writers  employ  it  for  "to  straighten, 
to  put  into  natural  position,  abnormal  or  dislocated  parts  of 
the  body."6 

The  "dropsical  man"7  (Luke  14:  2)  is  described  by  a  word 
that  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament,  though 
this  adjective  as  a  substantive,  as  in  Luke,  "is  the  usual  way 
in  medical  language  of  denoting  a  person  suffering  from 
dropsy."8  Hobart  cites  examples  from  Hippocrates,  Dios- 
corides,  Galen. 

1  dtvex£8c<jev.  In  a  Christian  letter  of  4  c.  A.  D.  we  have  dcvaxaBeaSscsa  used 
of  a  convalescent  woman  who  is  still  sickly.     P.  Oxy.,  VI,  939,  25. 

2  Hobart,  Medical  Language  of  St.  Luke,  pp.   11  f.    So  Hippocrates 
(Prcenot.  37)  has  dvaxaO^etv  (Jo6Xea6ac  tfcv  voaeovTa  TYJ?  v6oou 

4  dvaxityat.  Note  same  root.  For  el?  tb  iwtvreX^,  see  Heb.  7  :  25.  There 
is  a  play  on  the  words  dtvca&^ac  and  auvx&xtouoa.  In  Luke  21  :  28  Jesus  em 
ploys  dvax6tpate  with  SrofcpotTe.  See  P.  Par.,  47,  23  ff.  for  similar  use,  "a  very 
grandiloquent,  but  ill-spelt  letter"  (Moulton  and  Milligan,  Vocabulary  of  the 
Greek  N.  T.,  p.  35). 

6  dtvG>p6u>8Tj.  6  Hobart,  op,  cit.,  p.  22o  7 

8  Hobart,  op.  cU.t  p.  24. 


In  the  healing  of  the  lepers  (Luke  17  :  11-19)  Luke  uses  the 
ordinary  term  "leper,"1  not  "full  of  leprosy,"  as  in  5:12. 
Hobart2  thinks  that  Luke,  by  the  use  of  these  two  ways  of 
describing  the  disease  that  had  three  forms,3  according  to  Hip 
pocrates,  means  to  draw  a  distinction  in  accord  with  the  Hip- 
pocratic  diagnosis.  The  ten  lepers  had  the  milder  form  of 
the  disease. 

It  has  already  been  stated  that  Luke  first  mentions  the 
healing  of  Malchus's  ear  (Luke  22:51).  Jesus  "touched  the 
ear,  not  the  place  where  the  ear  had  been"  (Plummer,  in  loco), 
and  thus  Luke  means  to  record  the  "  solitary  miracle  of  surgery  " 
in  the  New  Testament,  again  with  the  physician's  interest  in 
such  a  case.  It  was  necessary  for  Jesus  to  undo  the  result  of 
Peter's  rash  act  to  show  that  he  was  not  the  leader  of  danger 
ous  persons. 

Luke  alone  records  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan 
(Luke  10  :  30-37)  with  its  account  of  the  care  of  the  wounded 
traveller.  Modern  hospitals  carry  out  the  point  of  this  story 
which  caught  Luke's  heart,  and  largely  because  of  what  Jesus 
said.  Hobart4  quotes  Galen  as  saying  "that  it  was  not  un 
usual  for  persons  when  seized  with  illness  on  a  journey  to  take 
refuge  in  inns.  Galen,  too,  uses  the  word  *  half-dead'5  in  de 
scribing  their  case."  This  word  occurs  here  only  in  the  New 
Testament  (see  4  Mace.  4:11).  But  Wellhausen  sets  aside 
the  medical  details  in  the  story  by  saying:  "Into  a  wound  one 
pours  oil,  but  not  oil  and  wine."  But  Wellhausen  is  set  at 
naught  by  Hippocrates,  who  recommended  for  wounds  "anoint 
ing  with  oil  and  wine."  6  Hobart7  observes  that  "wine  and  oil 
were  usual  remedies  for  sores,  wounds,  etc.,  and  also  used  as 
internal  medicine."  The  words8  for  binding  up,  wounds,  pour 
ing,  are  all  common  as  medical  terms. 

In  the  story  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus  (Luke  16  :  19-31) 
a  number  of  medical  terms  appear.  Lazarus  was  "full  of 
sores."  9  The  word  is  peculiar  to  Luke  in  the  New  Testament, 

1  Xexp6?.  2  Op.  tit.,  p.  5.  8  fifths,  Xe6xij, 

4  Op.  tit.,  p.  27.  6  -^t8avfc. 

6  Mosh.  Mul.  656,  cftefya?  IXafcp  seal  oTvtp.    See  P.  Petr.,  II,  25  (a)M  for 
use  of  xpfotv  for  "the  lotion  for  a  sick  horse"  (Moulton  and  Milligan,  Vo 
cabulary),  in  opposition  to  the  view  that  <JXe(^w  was  used  for  profane  an 
ointing  and  xpta  for  sacred  uses  only. 

7  Op.  tit.,  p.  28,  8  *<jcTaS4o>, 


and  is  "the  regular  medical  term  for  to  be  ulcerated."1  Hip 
pocrates  has  a  treatise  on  "ulcers."2  "The  physician  thinks 
of  the  absence  of  medical  help:  the  dogs  licked  his  sores."3 
The  dogs  gave  "the  only  attention,  and,  so  to  speak,  medical 
dressing,  which  his  sores  received"  (St.  Cyril).  The  words 
for  "cool"4  and  being  "in  anguish"5  are  common  in  medical 
writers,  the  latter  for  pain  and  the  former  for  alleviation. 

It  is  now  evident  that  Luke  has  betrayed  in  his  Gospel  the 
habits  of  mind  of  a  physician.  There  is  no  straining  after 
effect  in  this  argument.  It  is  cumulative  and  overpowering. 

4.  Medical  Matters  in  Acts. — How  is  it  in  the  Acts  ?  Does 
Luke  reveal  his  professional  interest  to  the  same  extent  here? 
To  this  question  we  now  turn.  As  in  the  Gospel,  so  in  the 
Acts,  Luke  has  general  statements  concerning  the  great  num 
ber  of  cures  wrought  by  the  Apostles  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  5 : 16) 
and  by  Paul  in  Ephesus  (Acts  19: 11).  Harnack6  thinks  that 
"this  invariable  disposition  to  see  in  the  miracles  of  healing 
the  chief  function  of  the  mighty  forces  of  the  new  religion, 
and  at  the  same  time  on  each  occasion  to  distinguish  with 
anxious  care  between  ordinary  sick  folk  and  the  'possessed/ 
points  to  a  physician  as  the  author."  Ramsay7  criticises  Har 
nack  for  being  "too  purely  verbal,"  and  for  having  "too  little 
hold  upon  realities  and  facts"  in  his  treatment  of  Luke.  There 
is  something  in  this  indictment,  but  Harnack  sees  dearly  the 
weight  of  Hobart's  proof  that  a  physician  wrote  the  Gospel 
and  the  Acts.  Ramsay8  is  right,  also,  in  seeing  that  Hobart's 
proof  stands  in  spite  of  his  overstatements  here  and  there. 
"The  valuelessness  of  one  detail,  the  lightness  of  one  stone, 
does  not  take  away  from  the  strength  and  the  weight  of  the 
other  details,  though  it  may  annoy  and  mislead  the  hasty 
reader  who  judges  by  a  sample,  and  by  chance  or  design  takes 
the  poorest."  In  cumulative  evidence  one  feels  the  force  of 
the  whole.  In  this  argument  we  have  simply  selected  a  few  of 
the  most  striking  examples  given  by  Hobart.  These  hold  true, 
whatever  is  true  of  the  rest.  And  these  prove  the  point. 

1  Hobart,  op.  tit.,  p.  31.  2  e'XxTj  (Luke  16 : 21). 

3  Harnack,  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  191. 

4  xaTa<J>6%a>.     Luke  has  four  of  these  compounds  which  "were  very  much 
used  in  medical  language"  (Hobart). 

5  6  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  196. 
7  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  59.  8  Ibid.,  p.  225. 


When  we  come  to  details  in  Acts  the  story  of  the  Gospel  is 
repeated.  In  Acts  1  :  3  Luke  alone  in  the  New  Testament  has 
the  word  "proof"1  which  "was  technically  employed  in  medi 
cal  language."2  In  fact,  Dioscorides  uses  the  word  in  his 
Proem  to  his  work  De  Materia  Medica.  In  familiar  language 
"proof"  and  "sign"3  were  synonymous  (Wisd.  5:11),  yet 
Aristotle  (Rhet.  1  :  2)  makes  the  technical  distinction  which 
"was  strictly  maintained  by  medical  men,  although  Luke  may 
no  doubt  have  met  the  word  elsewhere."  4  One  need  not  press 
this  point  nor  the  use  of  "wait  for"5  in  1  :  4,  used  only  by  Luke 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  common  in  medical  writings  for 
awaiting  the  result  of  medicine  or  other  medical  treatment.6 
In  Acts  1  :  18  the  word  for  "headlong"7  is  peculiar  to  Luke 
and  is  common  to  medical  writers  in  a  technical  sense.  The 
word  occurs  in  classical  writers. 

In  Acts  3  :  7  f.,  Luke  has  a  remarkable  description  of  the 
sudden  healing  of  the  lame  man.  Note  "ankle-bones"  8  which 
is  found  here  alone  in  the  New  Testament  and  is  the  technical 
language  of  a  medical  man.9  Besides,  the  word  for  "feet"  10  is 
unusual  in  this  sense  outside  of  medical  works.  The  word  for 
"received  strength"11  is  common  enough,  but  medical  writers 
use  it.  Luke's  word  for  "immediately"12  is  frequent  in  both 
Gospel  and  Acts,  and  in  the  great  majority  of  instances  he  uses 
it  concerning  cases  of  healing  or  of  death  as  it  appears  in  medi 
cal  writers.13  Notice  also  Luke's  interest  in  the  proof  of  the 
sudden  cure  (leaping,  standing,  beginning  to  walk). 

In  Acts  5  :  5  and  10  Luke  says  that  both  Ananias  and  Sap- 
phira  "gave  up  the  ghost."14  He  uses  it  also  of  the  death  of 
Herod  Agrippa  I  (Acts  12  :  23).  It  occurs  in  Ezek.  21  :  7,  but 
"  seems  to  be  almost  confined  to  the  medical  writers,  and  very 
seldom  used  by  them."  15  So  in  Acts  5  :  6  Luke  has  "wrapped 
him  round"  16  or  "shrouded  him."  This  verb  occurs  only  once 
in  classical  Greek  in  this  sense  of  "shroud,"  but  "in  medical 

2  Hobart,  op.  tit.,  p.  184.  8 

4  Knowling,  Acts,  in  loco.  6 

6  Hobart,  op.  cit.,  p.  184.  7 

8  a4>pi»Sp&. 
9'Hobart,  op.  cit.,  pp.  34  f.;  Knowling,  Acts,  in  loco. 

10  frfcastq. 

12  xapaxpTJ{xa.     Mark  uses  e56u<;. 

13  Hobart,  op.  tit.,  pp.  97  f. 
15  Hobart,  op.  tit.,  p.  37. 


language  the  word  is  very  frequent  and  its  sense  varied,"  l  for 
bandaging,  binding,  etc. 

In  the  account  of  SauPs  conversion  Luke  says  (Acts  9  :  18) 
that  "  scales  '  '  2  "  fell  "  3  from  his  eyes.  Both  words  are  peculiar 
to  Luke  in  the  New  Testament,  but  are  common  in  medical 
writers  and  in  conjunction  for  the  falling  off  of  scales  from  the 
cuticle  or  any  diseased  part  of  the  body.4 

In  the  case  of  /Eneas  (Acts  9  :  33)  Luke  employs  the  same 
technical  word  for  "sick  of  the  palsy"  that  he  has  in  the  Gospel 
(5  :  18),  but  he  also  gives  "a  medical  note  of  the  length  of  time 
the  disease  had  lasted"6  (eight  years),  as  he  does  in  other  cases: 
"The  woman  with  a  spirit  of  infirmity  was  eighteen  years  ill; 
the  woman  with  an  issue  of  blood  twelve  years;  the  lame  man 
at  the  gate  of  the  temple  was  forty  years  old,  and  his  disease 
congenital."6  Luke  has  four  words7  for  "sick-bed,"  and  this 
fact  itself  is  remarkable.  One  for  couch  or  bed,  and  two 
diminutives  (peculiar  to  Luke  in  N.  T.)  from  that  and  one  for 
the  pallet  of  the  poorer  classes.  ^Eneas  was  lying  on  the  pal 
let.  In  Acts  5:  15  Luke  notes  that  the  sick  were  laid  "on 
beds  and  pallets."8  In  Acts  10  :  10;  11  :  5;  22  :  17  Luke  em 
ploys  a  word  for  "trance"  (our  "ecstasy"),  common  enough 
for  "wonder,"  but  Luke  alone  in  the  New  Testament  has  it 
for  vision  or  trance.  It  is  frequent  in  medical  works  in  this 

Hobart9  notes  that  the  "mist"10  and  darkness  that  fell  on 
Elymas  (Acts  13  :  11)  was  a  distinct  eye-disease.  Galen  uses 
the  word  for  one  of  the  diseases  of  the  eye,  and  Dioscorides 
applies  it  to  the  cataract.  It  is  not  in  the  Septuagint,  and 
Luke  alone  has  it  in  the  New  Testament. 

In  the  case  of  the  lame  man  at  Lystra  (Acts  14  :  8)  who  was 
"impotent  in  his  feet,"  ll  Luke  employs  a  word  common  enough 
in  the  sense  of  "impossible,"  but  only  here  in  the  New  Testa- 

1  Hobart,  op.  ait.,  p.  38. 

3  dirf-jcemzv.    In  P.  Par.,  47,  27  (B.  C.  153)  we  have  dxox(xro)  in  the  sense 
of  "collapse." 

4  Hobart,  op.  cU.,  p.  39.  B  Hobart,  op.  ctt,,  p.  40. 

7  xXfvT),  xXtvdptov,  xXtvfSiov,  xp4$@<rro<;  (pallet). 

8  lict  xXtvaptav  xal  xpa^diTtov. 

9  Op.  cti.  10 

M<iB6vaTo?  rots  icoaCv.     In  P.  Lond.,  971,  4  (iii-iv  A.  D.)  we  have  ,dc36vaTO<; 
used  of  a  woman  who  was  not  strong,  Sid  dcoO^vstav  «rij<;  <J>6asto<;. 


ment  in  the  sense  of  "impotent."  Medical  writers  use  it 
freely  as  Luke  has  it  here.1  One  thinks  of  "foot-drop,"  "fall 
ing  arch"  and  many  other  weaknesses  of  the  foot. 

In  Acts  20  :  9-12  Luke  twice  observes  that  the  lad  was  borne 
down  by  sleep,  once  by  "deep  sleep,"  like  Galen  and  Hippoc 
rates  and  other  medical  writers.  Luke  mentions  also  that 
there  were  "many  lights"  in  the  room.  Hobart2  thinks  that 
the  heat  and  oily  smells  helped  to  make  the  lad  sleepy  and  not 
alone  Paul's  long  sermon.  He  notes  also  that  he  fell  from  the 
third  story  and  naturally  was  taken  up  dead.  "They  brought 
the  lad  alive."  Luke  was  in  the  company  and  doubtless  was 
one  of  the  first  to  pick  up  the  boy.  He  saw  Paul  heal  the  lad 
and  was  deeply  impressed  by  the  incident. 

In  Acts  21  :  1-10  several  interesting  items  call  for  notice. 
Luke,  like  the  barbarians,  was  interested  in  the  fact  that  Paul 
did  not  fall  down  dead  suddenly  when  bitten  by  the  "viper" 
or  "constrictor,"  which  Ramsay3  urges  as  the  translation. 
Constrictors  have  no  poison-fangs  and  do  not  technically  bite, 
but  they  cling  or  "fasten  on"4  as  this  snake  did  to  Paul's  hand. 
The  word  ("fastened  on")  is  peculiar  to  Luke  in  the  New  Tes 
tament,  and  is  common  in  medical  writers.  "Dioscorides 
uses  it  of  poisonous  matter  introduced  into  the  body."  6  Ram 
say  insists  that  the  constrictor,  not  the  viper  in  the  technical 
sense,  alone  occurs  in  Malta,  and  Luke  uses  a  general  term6 
once,  and  the  word  for  viper7  is  not  always  strictly  used.  In 
any  case  Luke  is  in  no  trouble.  The  word  for  swelling8  is  also 
a  medical  term  :  9  it  is  the  usual  word  for  inflammation.  Besides, 
Luke's  word  for  "expected"  10  is  used  eleven  times  by  Luke  and 
only  five  in  all  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  common 
in  medical  writers.  And  then  Luke  notes  that  the  father  of 
Publius  had  "fevers"  u  as  well  as  dysentery.  The  word  in  the 
plural  for  one  person  is  peculiar  to  Luke  in  the  New  Testa 
ment,  but  it  is  strictly  medical,  as  in  Hippocrates,  who  uses  it 
in  connection  with  dysentery,  as  Luke  does  here.12  Luke  alone 
uses  this  medical  word  also  in  the  New  Testament.  It  has 

1  Hobart,  op.  tit.,  p.  46.  2  Ibid.,  p.  48. 

8  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  63.  4  xa6?)4>ev. 

6  Hobart,  op.  tit.,  p.  288.  6  6rjp(ov. 

9  Hobart,  op.  tit.,  p.  50.  10 

11  TcupsToi?.  »  Hobart,  op.  tit.,  p.  52. 


been  already  observed  that  Luke  employs  one  verb1  for  the 
miraculous  cure  of  Publius  by  Paul  and  another2  for  the  gen 
eral  practice  of  medicine  in  which  he  engaged.  The  rest  came 
and  received  medical  treatment  at  Luke's  hands. 

It  is  impossible  in  the  light  of  the  foregoing  facts  not  to  agree 
with  Harnack3  that  the  evidence  is  of  "overwhelming  force." 
The  author  of  both  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  was  a  physician. 
Even  if  Paul  had  not  told  us  that  Luke  was  a  physician,  we 
could  now  see  it  to  be  true.  It  is  good  to  be  able  to  see  the 
facts.  It  is  not  claimed  that  Luke  knew  modern  scientific 
theories,  but  that  he  had  the  spirit  and  method  of  the  man  of 
science  of  his  day. 

2  48epaice6ovro. 
Luke  the  Physician,  p.  198. 



"The  Holy  Spirit  shall  come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the 
Most  High  shall  overshadow  thee"  (Luke  1 : 35). 

It  is  hard  to  overestimate  the  world's  debt  to  Luke.  But 
for  Luke  we  should  not  have  the  Christmas  story.  How  poor 
we  should  be  without  it. 

1.  A  Vital  Element  in  Luke's  History. — It  is  manifest  that 
the  more  we  have  stressed  the  general  culture  of  Luke,  his 
scientific  training  as  a  physician  and  his  painstaking  research 
as  a  historian,  the  more  difficult  it  is  to  say  that  Luke  just 
dumped  in  the  story  of  Christ's  birth  because  he  picked  it  up 
and  because  he  wished  to  have  a  fuller  report  than  Mark  had 
given.  If  "Luke  is  a  historian  of  the  first  rank,"2  he  must  be 
credited  with  a  serious  purpose  in  giving  the  account  of  the 
Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus.  "We  can  argue,  then,  with  perfect 
confidence  that  Luke  did  not  take  the  narrative  of  the  birth 
and  childhood  of  Christ  from  mere  current  talk  and  general 
belief ." 3  To  say  that  he  was  credulous  and  told  legends  about 
Zacharias  and  Elizabeth,  Joseph  and  Mary,  John  and  Jesus,  is 
to  fly  in  the  face  of  Luke  1 : 1-4  and  to  brand  Luke  either  as 
a  hypocrite  or  an  incompetent.  Every  man  is  a  child  of  his 
time  save  Jesus,  who  is  that  and  also  the  child  of  all  time. 
In  this  discussion  no  claim  is  made  that  Luke  is  infallible  or 
even  inspired.  It  is  only  asked  that  all  the  facts  involved  be 
honestly  faced, 

One  may  pass  by  occasional  bias,  personal  prejudice,  or  a 
slip  now  and  then  in  a  historian  without  throwing  him  to  the 
discard,  if  one  sees  proof  of  these  things.  An  occasional  fly 
in  the  ointment  can  be  discounted.  But  in  a  crucial  matter 
like  the  birth  of  Jesus  in  Luke  1  and  2  one  cannot  overlook 
carelessness  or  credulity.  "If  a  historian  is  convicted  in  a 
vital  error  on  such  a  vital  point,  he  ceases  to  be  trustworthy 

1  See  Sunday  School  Times,  May  29,  1920. 

2  Ramsay,  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  222. 

3  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  80. 



on  his  own  account." 1  We  cannot  deny  the  fact  that  Luke, 
great  historian  and  great  physician  as  he  was,  soberly  recorded 
the  superhuman  birth  of  Jesus.2  Luke  reports  that  Jesus  had 
a  human  mother,  but  not  a  human  father.  This  is  the  core  of 
the  problem  but  not  all  of  it.  Luke  likewise  narrates  the  visits 
or  visions  of  the  angel  Gabriel  to  Zacharias  and  to  Mary.  He 
also  tells  the  message  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  to  the  shepherds 
near  Bethlehem  and  the  song  of  the  heavenly  host  and  the 
visit  of  the  shepherds  to  Mary  and  the  child.  And  then  he 
records  the  prophetic  insight  of  Simeon  and  Anna,  besides  the 
noble  hymns  of  Elizabeth,  Mary  and  Zacharias.  He  has 
written  these  narratives  with  consummate  care  and  skill.  One 
has  only  to  turn  to  the  silly  legends  about  the  birth  of  Jesus  in 
the  Nativity  of  Mary,  the  Pseudo-Matthew,  the  Arabic  Gos 
pel  of  the  Infancy,  the  Protevangelium  of  James,  the  Gospel  of 
Thomas,  to  see  the  restraint  and  simple  dignity  of  Luke's 
narrative.  "The  frigid  miracle-mongering  of  the  so-called 
Gospels  of  the  Infancy,  when  compared  with  the  transparent 
honesty  and  delicate  reserve  of  our  Evangelists,  offers  one  of 
the  most  instructive  contrasts  in  all  literature." 3 

It  is  impossible  to  separate  Luke  the  physician  and  Luke 
the  historian.  It  is  the  cultured  Greek  physician,  the  man  of 
science,  who  contributes  the  story  of  the  miraculous  birth  of 
Jesus.  It  is  easy  enough  to  some  to  dismiss  the  whole  story  as 
due  to  heathen  myth  or  Jewish  legend,  with  the  desire  to  satisfy 
devout  demands  for  the  deification  of  Jesus.  The  Roman 
emperors  were  worshipped.  Why  not  attribute  deity  to  Jesus  ? 
But  heathenism  had  no  influence  on  Christianity  thus  early, 
and  it  was  repellent  to  Judaism  to  worship  Jesus.  Harnack4 
holds  that  one  "must  cherish  serious  doubts  as  to  whether  the 
idea  of  the  Virgin  Birth  would  have  ever  made  its  appearance 

1  Ramsay,  ibid.,  p.  6. 

2  Some  modern  writers  profess  to  see  in  Luke  1 : 31-33  natural  paternity 
and  in  1 : 34-35  supernatural  causality,  claiming  that  the  original  docu 
ment  gave  only  the  first,  while  Luke  added  the  second.    So  Weiss  in  his 
ed.  of  Meyer,  p.  303.    But  that  is  purely  hypothetical.    See  Bruce,  Exposi 
tor's  Greek  Testament,  p.  465.    There  is  no  doubt  at  all  as  to  the  genuine 
ness  of  Luke  1 : 34-35,  since  all  the  documents  give  it.    Here  we  have  the 
view  of  Luke  whatever  was  in  the  source  (oral  or  written).    He  attributes 
the  origin  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  calls  the  child  the 
Son  of  God. 

3  J.  Armitage  Robinson,  Some  Thoughts  on  the  Incarnation,  p.  38. 

4  Date  of  the  Acts  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  p.  145. 


on  Jewish  soil  if  it  had  not  been  for  Isaiah  7 : 14."  He  thinks1 
that  orthodox  Jews  may  have  brooded  over  the  idea  that  the 
Mother  of  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a  virgin.  At  any  rate  Har- 
nack  is  sure  that  Luke  "could  not  have  himself  invented  a  fic 
tion  like  this."2  But  "fiction"  he  takes  it  to  be.  Matthew 
Arnold3  bluntly  asserts:  "I  do  not  believe  in  the  Virgin  Birth 
of  Christ  because  it  involves  a  miracle,  and  miracles  do  not 
happen."  Thus  science  and  history  are  turned  against  Luke's 
narrative.  But  scientists  to-day  are  not  so  dogmatic  against 
the  possibility  of  miracle.  The  eminent  scientist  Professor 
Sir  George  Stokes  says  in  the  Gifford  Lectures  for  1891,  p.  23: 
"If  we  think  of  the  laws  of  Nature  as  self-existent  and  self- 
caused,  then  we  cannot  admit  any  deviation  from  them.  But 
if  we  think  of  them  as  designed  by  a  Supreme  Will,  then  we 
must  allow  the  possibility  of  their  being  on  some  particular 
occasion  suspended."  Miracle  is  difficult  of  definition.  The 
English  word  is  from  the  Latin  miraculum,  meaning  a  wonder 
ful  thing.  But  in  the  New  Testament  the  word  for  wonder 
(teras)  never  occurs  alone,  but  in  connection  with  the  words  for 
mighty  works  (dunameis)  and  for  signs  (semeid).  The  New 
Testament  conception  of  miracle  is  thus  that  it  is  something 
out  of  the  ordinary,  wrought  by  the  special  interposition  of  the 
Divine  Will,  for  a  high  moral  purpose.  Sir  Oliver  Lodge  (Life 
and  Matter,  p.  198)  holds  that  life  transcends  and  yet  also 
combines  and  controls  the  physical  forces  of  the  world. 

The  point  is  not  made  here  that  one  "must"  believe  in  the 
Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  or  be  damned.  It  is  doubtful  if  the 
Twelve  Apostles  knew  the  facts  about  Christ's  birth  at  first. 
Indeed,  it  cannot  be  positively  proven  that  any  of  them  ever 
became  familiar  with  the  facts  about  the  Virgin  Birth,  unless 
the  Apostle  Matthew  is  the  author  of  our  Greek  Gospel  bearing 
his  name  and  the  Apostle  John  wrote  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Cer 
tainly  they  would  not  preach  them  during  the  lifetime  of  Mary 
out  of  regard  for  her.  In  the  nature  of  the.  case  the  subject 

1  Ibid.,  p.  148. 

zlbid.,  p.  155.  Carpenter  (Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  p.  156) 
observes  that  "the  Jews  had  no  particular  reverence  for  virginity.  .  .  . 
Isaiah's  words  were  never  regarded  by  the  Jews  as  a  prediction  of  Mes 
siah's  birth  of  a  virgin."  See  also  Box,  The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus,  p.  220. 
Philo's  teaching  is  too  vague  and  at  most  implies  divine  generation  for  the 
Messiah,  not  Virgin  Birth. 

3  Preface  to  Literature  and  Dogma. 


was  not,  and  is  not,  one  for  public  discourse.  Jesus  made  no 
reference  to  the  matter  so  far  as  we  know.  Soltau1  is  rather 
fierce  in  his  protest :  "  Whoever  makes  the  further  demand  that 
an  evangelical  Christian  shall  believe  in  the  words  '  conceived  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary/  wittingly  constitutes 
himself  a  sharer  in  a  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit  of  the  true 
Gospel  as  transmitted  to  us  by  the  apostles  and  their  school." 
But  surely  Soltau  is  a  bit  excited  in  these  words.  The  simple 
truth  is  that  the  only  record  in  the  Gospels  gives  the  Virgin 
Birth.  Mark  begins  with  the  public  ministry  and,  of  course, 
has  nothing  at  all  on  the  subject.  John  writes  after  Matthew 
and  Luke  and  seems  to  refer  to  the  Virgin  Birth  in  John  1 : 14. 
The  reference  is  certainly  to  the  Incarnation  and  it  is  not  in 
consistent  with  the  Virgin  Birth.  If  it  be  asked  why  John 
makes  no  explicit  mention  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  it  may  be 
replied  that  he  was  content  with  what  Matthew  and  Luke  tell 
and  saw  no  occasion  to  add  to  what  they  narrate.  There  are 
those  who  interpret  John  1 : 14  as  a  denial  of  the  Virgin  Birth, 
but  that  surely  is  a  misinterpretation  of  John's  language.  Both 
Matthew  and  Luke  narrate  the  birth  of  Jesus  as  superhuman 
without  a  human  father.  They  give  independent  narratives, 
but  they  agree  on  this  crucial  point. 

We  are  concerned  with  Luke  the  physician.  "Some  day 
we  may  know  how  a  Greek  physician  came  to  write  the  story 
of  Bethlehem."2  Luke  as  a  physician  had  written  his  birth 
reports  (and  death  reports),  but  never  one  like  this.  He  knew 
the  silly  legends  about  the  Caesars  and  the  Greek  gods  and  god 
desses.  He  has  reverence  for  childhood  and  for  motherhood. 
He  has  the  soul  of  the  saint  and  the  insight  of  the  scientist. 
He  is  perfectly  conscious  of  the  importance  of  this  part  of  his 
story,  but  he  is  not  posing.  There  are  no  stage  theatricals  as 
at  the  birth  of  Louis  XIV  at  St.  Germain.  With  matchless 
art  he  pictures  the  Babe  in  the  manger  at  Bethlehem.  We 
may  be  sure  that  this  story  came  out  of  the  Christian  circle, 
out  of  the  inner  circle. 

2.  Did  Luke  Believe  His  Narrative  ? — The  question  is  quite 
pertinent.  We  are  bound  to  say  that  he  did.  Harnack3  has 
no  doubt  of  Luke's  sincerity.  He  clearly  thinks  that  he  is 
narrating  facts,  not  pious  legends.  Harnack  suggests  that 

1  The  Virgin  Birth,  p.  65.  2Naylor,  The  Expositor,  1909. 

3  Date  of  the  Acts  and  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  pp.  154  f . 


Luke  may  have  been  an  adherent  of  John  the  Baptist  before  he 
became  a  Christian,  because  of  his  knowledge  of  the  birth  of 
the  Baptist.  That  is  quite  unlikely,  and  Luke's  two  years  in 
Palestine,  with  headquarters  at  Csesarea,  offer  abundant  oppor 
tunity  for  obtaining  such  information.  Luke  tells  the  Christ 
mas  story  with  utter  sincerity,  sheer  simplicity  and  transcen 
dent  beauty.  Christianity  thus  owes  Luke  a  tremendous 
debt.  The  influence  of  the  first  two  chapters  of  Luke's  Gospel 
on  the  race  has  been  incalculable.  So  far  from  being  a  mere 
teller  of  old  wives'  fables  in  chapters  1  and  2,  Ramsay1  holds 
that  "Luke  attached  the  highest  importance  to  this  part  of 
his  narrative."  "The  elaboration  and  detail  of  the  first  two 
chapters  of  the  Gospel  form  a  sufficient  proof  that  Luke  recog 
nized  the  importance  of  the  central  incident  in  them."  We 
may  argue,  therefore,  that  as  a  historian  of  the  first  rank  Luke 
took  particular  pains  with  the  birth  of  Jesus.  His  reputation 
as  a  man  of  science  was  involved,  as  was  his  character  as  an 
honest  historian.  Whether  he  translated  Aramaic  documents 
or  oral  traditions  or  rewrote  the  whole  in  his  own  language, 
Luke  makes  himself  responsible  for  the  narrative. 

It  is  inconceivable  that  he  put  in  these  stories  without  due 
reflection.  He  saw  what  was  at  stake  and  wrote  them  out 
deliberately.  He  would  not  have  done  so  if  he  had  considered 
them  merely  idle  tales.  He  believed  in  the  supernatural  birth 
of  Jesus.  Was  he  incompetent  ?  Was  he  superstitious  ?  Was 
he  credulous?  Was  he  gullible ?  We  may  ask  these  questions 
if  we  will.  But  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  question  Luke's  intel 
lectual  honesty.  He  may  have  been  mistaken.  That  is  a 
matter  of  opinion.  But,  at  least,  he  is  entitled  to  be  heard 
concerning  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  on  the  assumption  of  his 
own  belief  in  that  event  with  whatever  weight  his  proved  worth 
as  an  accurate  historian  and  his  opinion  as  a  medical  expert  of 
his  time  may  carry.  Luke  himself  says  "that  he  had  inves 
tigated  from  their  origin  the  facts  which  he  is  going  to  narrate."  2 
"St.  Luke  has  been  proved  to  be  a  writer  of  great  historical 
accuracy,  and  we  may  be  certain  that  he  admitted  nothing 
within  his  record  of  which  he  had  not  thoroughly  tested  the 
truth."3  The  presumption,  then,  is  in  favor  of  the  truthful- 

1  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  73. 

2  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  78. 

3  Grierson,  Hastings's  One  Vol.  B.  D. 


ness  of  the  Birth  narrative  so  far  as  Luke's  character  as  a 
man  and  writer  goes,  unless,  forsooth,  the  matter  in  question 
is  inherently  impossible  in  itself.  That  condition  we  pass  by 
for  the  present,  but  it  must  be  considered  before  we  reach  a 
conclusion.  For  the  moment  Luke  predisposes  one  to  believe 
his  narrative. 

3.  Where  Did  Luke  Get  His  Information  ? — In  Chapter  III, 
The  Sources  of  the  Gospel,  it  was  shown  that  Luke  probably 
obtained  the  facts  about  the  birth  of  Jesus  from  Mary  herself, 
either  directly  or  indirectly.  It  is  quite  possible  that  Mary 
herself  was  still  living  in  Palestine  during  the  years  57  and  58, 
when  Luke  was  there.1  If  not,  Luke  could  easily  have  talked 
with  some  one  who  knew  Mary's  heart  on  this  subject.  Ram 
say  thinks  that  the  directness  of  the  whole  story  implies  oral 
origin  rather  than  formal  autobiography.  "  There  is  a  womanly 
spirit  in  the  whole  narrative,  which  seems  inconsistent  with 
the  transmission  from  man  to  man,  and  which,  moreover,  is 
an  indication  of  Luke's  character:  he  had  marked  sympathy 
with  women." 2  It  is  impossible  to  think  that  Luke  deliberately 
attempted  to  create  the  false  impression  by  literary  skill  that 
Mary  was  the  source  of  his  knowledge.3  There  were  only  two 
persons  who  knew  the  facts  concerning  the  supernatural  birth 
of  Jesus.  These  were  Mary  and  Joseph. 

At  first  Mary  alone  knew.  But  Joseph  had  to  know  if  he 
was  to  be  the  protector  of  his  espoused  wife.  Matthew's  report 
is  from  the  standpoint  of  Joseph,  and  it  is  plain  that  Joseph 
was  disposed  to  put  Mary  away  privily  instead  of  making  her  a 
public  example  according  to  law  and  custom  (Matt.  1:19). 
It  is  not  stated  in  Matthew  whether  Joseph  simply  became 
suspicious  or  whether  he  disbelieved  the  story  of  Mary,  though 
it  is  implied  that  she  did  not  tell  for  a  while.  Note  "  she  was 
found  with  child  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Matt.  1:19).  Cer 
tainly  Mary's  predicament  was  awkward  and  embarrassing  in 
the  extreme.  The  appearance  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  to 
Joseph  was  necessary  to  clear  her  in  Joseph's  eyes  (Matt. 
1 : 20-25).  Then  Joseph  was  willing  to  bear  the  obloquy  of 
public  reproach  with  Mary  and  to  shield  her  as  his  wife.  It 
is  plain  from  both  Matthew  and  Luke  that,  outside  of  Mary's 
confidence  to  Elizabeth,  they  kept  their  secret  to  themselves. 

1  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  88.  2  Ibid. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  78. 


It  is  undoubted  that  the  neighbors  in  Nazareth  regarded  Jesus 
as  the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  Talk  would  die  down  in  the 
course  of  time.  Joseph  planned  to  go  back  to  Bethlehem  on 
his  return  from  Egypt,  possibly  to  avoid  the  gossip  of  Naz 
areth.  But  because  of  the  change  in  Herod's  will  he  came 
back  to  Nazareth,  for  Antipas  was  to  be  preferred  to  Arche- 
laus  (Matt.  11:22).  Mary  could  carry  her  head  erect,  for 
she  knew  the  facts  and  kept  them  hid  in  her  heart  (Luke 
2 : 19,  51).  It  was  enough  that  Joseph  understood  and  trusted 
her.  The  effort  of  Herod  to  kill  the  Babe  would  close  Mary's 
mouth  all  the  tighter.  Fortunately  Mary  would  not  hear  all 
the  talk  which  reappears  even  in  the  Talmud.  Any  claim  on 
her  part  that  her  son  was  to  be  the  Messiah  would  have  made 
matters  worse. 

But  was  Mary  to  remain  silent  always?  Did  she  not  owe 
it  to  herself  and  to  Joseph  and  to  Jesus  to  tell  the  facts  before 
she  died?  Both  Mary  and  Joseph  might  die.  Joseph  appar 
ently  did  die  before  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  but  not  before  telling 
his  story  to  some  one,  or  drafting  it  so  that  Matthew  ultimately 
got  hold  of  it.  Jesus  was  now  dead.  Elizabeth  had  long 
since  died.  Mary  alone  was  left.  She  had  a  sacred  responsi 
bility  to  clear  her  own  honor.1  Clearly,  then,  sooner  or  later, 
Mary  told  some  one,  either  her  intimate  friend  Joanna,  or 
Luke,  the  sympathetic  physician  who  would  understand  her 
inmost  heart.  We  can  be  grateful  that  she  revealed  the  secrets 
of  her  soul.  "In  these  chapters,  in  short,  we  seem  looking 
through  a  glass  into  Mary's  very  heart.  Her  purity  of  soul, 
her  delicate  reserve,  her  inspired  exaltation,  her  patient  com 
mitting  of  herself  into  God's  hands  to  vindicate  her  honor,  her 
deep,  brooding,  thoughtful  spirit — how  truth-like  and  worthy 
of  the  fact  is  the  whole  picture/'2 

It  is  not  hard  to  imagine  the  intense  interest  with  which 
Luke  first  listened  to  this  story  from  Mary  or  read  her  narra 
tive  of  her  unexampled  experience.  He  satisfied  himself  of  its 
truthfulness  by  all  the  tests  that  were  open  to  him.  His  Greek 
science  and  Christian  theology  offered  objections  and  raised 
difficulties,  we  may  be  sure.  After  accepting  Mary's  report  of 
her  experiences  Luke  was  naturally  anxious  to  do  justice  to 
Mary  and  to  Jesus.  Doctor  Len  G.  Broughton,  of  Knoxville, 

1  Orr,  The  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ,  p.  86. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  84. 


himself  long  a  physician  of  skill,  remarked l  to  me  that  Luke 
naturally  gives  Mary's  version  of  the  event  because  that  is  the 
practice  of  the  physician.  He  talks  to  the  mother  before  he 
makes  his  birth-report. 

4.  But  Why  Did  Luke  Tell  It  At  All  f— Why  not  keep  silent 
on  the  subject  as  the  Apostles  did  in  their  preaching  and  as 
Mark  did  in  his  Gospel?  It  is  customary  to  say  that  Luke 
wished  to  write  a  complete  life  of  Jesus  and  not  a  mere  sketch 
of  his  ministry  and  death,  as  Mark  has  done.  It  is  more 
complete  but  it  is  not  a  full  life  of  Christ.  Luke  adds  the 
Birth  narrative  and  gives  only  one  glimpse  of  Jesus  thereafter, 
the  visit  to  Jerusalem  of  the  twelve-year-old  boy,  till  his  appear 
ance  by  the  Jordan.  The  crux  of  the  matter  is  the  supernat 
ural  birth  of  Jesus.  He  evidently  felt  that  this  must  be  told 
whatever  else  was  left  out.  And  he  naturally  tells  it  first  of 

It  is  usually  said  that  the  Logia  of  Jesus  (Q)  did  not  contain 
an  account  of  the  birth  of  Jesus.  This  is  probably  true, 
though  it  cannot  be  affirmed  positively.  Matthew  and  Luke 
do,  indeed,  give  different  versions  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  but  it 
does  not  follow  that  Luke  was  not  acquainted  with  that  of 
Matthew.  Q  may  very  well  have  included  matter  that  is 
represented  by  either  Matthew  or  Luke  and  not  used  by 
both  Gospels.  Q  was  chiefly  discourses.  But  both  Matthew 
and  Luke,  apart  from  Q,  may  have  known  the  story  from 
Joseph's  standpoint  as  Matthew  tells  it.  It  is  wholly  possible 
that  Luke  knew  the  Gospel  of  Matthew.  "It  is  now  most 
probable  that  Luke  had  heard  the  story  which  Matthew  gives, 
and  it  would  have  been  easy  to  fit  this  into  his  own  narrative 
without  disturbing  either  account.  But  they  do  not  rest  on 
equal  authority;  and  Luke  would  not  mix  the  two."2  If 
Joseph's  story  was  already  known  among  the  disciples  and 
written  down  in  Q  or  in  Matthew,  all  the  more  Luke  would  feel 
called  upon  to  give  Mary's  side  of  the  story  which  had  never 
been  written  in  a  Gospel  and  which  was  not  generally  known 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  case.  He  would  do  this  with  no 
thought  of  reflection  on  or  correction  of  the  Joseph  version. 
Ramsay3  thinks  that  he  prefers  Mary's  version  because  he 

1  At  Northfield,  August,  1919. 

2  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  79. 
9  Ibid. 


had  it  on  the  highest  authority,  from  Mary  herself.  The  con 
fidence  of  Mary  to  Luke,  if  given  personally,  he  took  as  a 
sacred  trust. 

It  is  plain  that  Luke's  purpose  is  different  from  that  of 
Matthew  whether  he  had  Matthew's  story  or  not.  Matthew 
writes  to  convince  the  Jews  that  Jesus  is  the  Jewish  Messiah. 
He  gives  the  legal  genealogy  of  Jesus  through  Joseph,  his  legal 
father,  though  it  is  made  plain  that  Joseph  is  not  the  actual 
father  of  Jesus.  Even  the  Sinaitic  Syriac,  which  says  in 
Matt.  1 : 16  that  Joseph  begat  Jesus,  contradicts  that  state 
ment  in  1 : 18-20  by  retaining  the  conception  of  Jesus  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  the  refusal  of  Joseph  to  keep  his  troth  with 
Mary  till  reassured  by  the  angel  of  the  Lord.  It  is  evident 
that  some  scribe,  probably  Ebionite  or  Cerinthina  Gnostic, 
changed  the  text  in  1 : 16  to  get  rid  of  the  superhuman  birth 
and  deity  of  Jesus,  but  failed  to  alter  1 : 18-20.  The  lineage 
of  Joseph,  given  by  Matthew,  was  the  only  way  for  Jesus  to 
have  a  legal  genealogy  from  the  Jewish  standpoint.  But  Luke 
is  not  writing  to  convince  Jews  that  Jesus  is  the  Jewish  Mes 
siah.  He  is  writing  for  the  Gentile  world,  to  prove  to  all  men 
everywhere  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  Saviour  of  the  world. 
All  that  Matthew  has  about  the  birth  of  Jesus  may  be  true,  but 
it  is  beside  the  mark  for  Luke's  purpose.  Luke  dedicates  his 
Gospel  to  Theophilus,  but  he  has  his  eye  on  the  Grseco-Roman 
world.  Hence  he  gives  the  actual  genealogy  of  Jesus  through 
his  mother  Mary.  He  does  not  even  combine  her  story  with 
that  of  Joseph,  but  gives  hers  alone.  The  two  accounts  sup 
plement  each  other  in  a  way  not  possible  if  both  are  romances. 
"No  two  imaginary  portraits  ever  agreed  unless  one  copied 
the  other — which  is  evidently  not  the  case  here." 1  Luke  had 
lived  in  Macedonia,  where  women  had  more  freedom  than  in 
most  places  at  that  time.  Luke  shows  himself  the  friend  of 
women  both  in  the  Gospel  and  in  the  Acts.  So  Luke  has 
every  reason  for  giving  the  story  of  the  Nativity  as  he  got  it 
from  Mary.  His  narrative  comes  from  a  woman  who  is  He 
brew  and  who  is  saturated  with  Hebrew  thought,  spirit  and 

It  is  sometimes  objected  that  the  Birth  narratives  in  Luke 
and  Matthew  are  legendary  because  they  do  not  appear  in 

1  Sweet,  art.  "Mary"  in  Int.  St.  Bible  Encycl. 

2  Ramsay,  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  13. 


Mark  and  John.  The  objection  about  Mark  is  quite  beside  the 
point,  since  he  begins  with  the  Baptist's  ministry.  His  work 
is  a  torso.  As  to  John,  the  case  is  different.  John  evidently 
was  familiar  with  the  accounts  of  both  Matthew  and  Luke. 
"But  John,  in  particular,  assumes  that  his  readers  know  the 
facts  recorded  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  and  his  work  is  an 
unintelligible  phenomenon  in  literature  unless  this  is  recog 
nized."1  It  is  a  gross  misunderstanding  of  John  1 : 14,  "the 
Word  became  flesh," 2  to  say  that  John  here  ignores  or  denies 
the  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus.  Indeed,  his  language  only  becomes 
intelligible  when  we  see  that  he  has  that  fact  in  mind.  John 
in  his  Prologue  has  given  a  philosophical  statement  of  the 
Incarnation  of  Christ  under  the  term  Logos.  He  has  taken 
the  Memra  of  the  Hebrew,  the  Logos  of  the  Stoics  and  Philo, 
the  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  in  Matthew  and  Luke,  and  has  put 
them  together  in  one  grand  conception  on  a  par  with  the  Jew 
ish  idea  of  Messiah.3  The  Logos  is  personal  and  pre-existent 
and  divine  (John  1 : 1)  before  his  Incarnation  (1 : 14).  Thus 
he  becomes  "God  only  begotten"  (1 : 18)  and  is  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father,  the  true  Interpretation  (Exegesis4)  of  the  Father, 
the  Son  of  God  in  the  flesh.  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  (1 : 34,  49). 
Here  John  says  nothing,  it  is  true,  about  Mary,  or  Joseph,  or 
the  angel  Gabriel,  or  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  gives  the  picture  of 
the  eternal  Son  of  God  becoming  flesh,  not  entering  into  flesh 
from  the  outside  and  not  seeming  to  be  flesh  as  the  Docetics 
taught,  but  actual  union  of  God  and  man.  Every  word  that 
John  employs  is  in  perfect  harmony  writh  the  records  in  Mat 
thew  and  Luke.  Indeed,  by  implication  John  denies  that 
Jesus  is  the  actual  son  of  Joseph. 

We  do  not  know  whether  Paul  was  acquainted  with  the 
birth  narrative  in  Luke's  Gospel.    There  is  no  reason  for  it 

1  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  98. 

2  6  X6YO?  c&pJj  lylvero. 

3  If  it  be  objected  that  John's  failure  to  speak  of  the  Holy  Spirit  shows 
that  he  did  not  believe  that  the  Incarnation  was  due  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  answer  is  that  by  the  same  reasoning  his  failure  to  mention  Mary  here 
might  show  disbelief  in  her  as  the  Mother  of  Jesus,  but  for  later  mention 
as  his  Mother.     What  can  be  truthfully  said  is  that  the  historical  details 
of  the  birth  of  Jesus  are  not  considered  by  John  germane  to  his  argument 
covering  the  Incarnation  Jof  the  Logos,  a  philosophical  concept  stated  in 
broad  general  terms. 


not  to  be  so  if  the  Gospel  was  written  in  Csesarea.  He  may  or 
may  not  have  heard  of  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  before  that 
time.  In  Gal.  4 : 4  Paul  speaks  of  Christ  as  "born  of  woman," 
which,  of  course,  is  true  of  all  men.  But  his  language  allows 
the  Virgin  Birth.  In  Romans  1 :  3  f .  Paul  presents  the  human 
nature  of  Christ,  "who  was  born  of  the  seed  of  David  accord 
ing  to  the  flesh,"  and  the  divine  nature  also,  "who  was  declared 
to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power,"  language  certainly  in  har 
mony  with  the  Virgin  Birth.  It  cannot  be  complained  that 
Paul  gives  no  details  on  this  subject.  Why  should  he  do  so? 
The  language  of  Paul  is  not  decisive  either  way.  It  may  well 
be  that  he  knew  nothing  at  all  about  the  Virgin  Birth  though 
he  says  nothing  that  is  inconsistent  with  it.  If  he  was  familiar 
with  the  narratives  in  Matthew  or  Luke  or  with  the  fact  itself, 
there  was  no  necessity  for  his  use  of  the  fact  in  connection  with 
the  Resurrection  or  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement.  The 
real  humanity  and  the  real  deity  of  Christ  are  the  pertinent 
facts  for  Paul's  argument.  He  was  not  giving  infancy  narra 
tives,  as  Matthew  and  Luke  did. 

5.  Is  the  Virgin  Birth  Credible  To-day  f — Can  a  modern  man 
accept  the  story  of  the  birth  of  Jesus?  Each  age  is  sure  of 
itself  and  credulous  of  others.  Our  own  is  characterized  by  a 
species  of  cocksureness  in  its  own  wisdom  that  has  no  founda 
tion  in  matter  of  fact.  This  question  of  the  Virgin  Birth  of 
Jesus,  attested  by  both  Matthew  and  Luke  in  two  independent 
narratives,  has  been  attacked  from  every  standpoint. 

On  scientific  grounds  it  is  argued  that  it  is  impossible.  At 
least  that  argument  was  once  made.  Modern  science  is 
familiar  with  parthenogenesis  or  "virgin  birth"  in  the  lower 
forms  of  life.1  Hence  science  cannot  set  aside  the  Virgin 
Birth  of  Jesus.  However,  Luke  does  not  present  the  birth  of 
Jesus  as  in  accord  with  nature.  He  distinctly  asserts  that  it 
was  due  to  the  overshadowing  of  Mary  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
like  the  Shekinah  or  Presence  of  God.  It  is  miracle  that  we 
have,  not  nature,  but  miracle  cannot  be  ruled  out  unless  it  is 
ruled  out  everywhere.  To  do  that  rules  out  God  and  leaves 

*See  interesting  article  on  "Parthenogenesis"  in  the  New  International 
Encyclopaedia,  where  a  fairly  full  discussion  of  the  subject  appears.  The 
aphis  (plant-louse),  gall-gnats  and  other  lower  forms  of  animal  life  show 
examples  of  parthenogenesis.  Loeb  has  succeeded  in  developing  sea- 
urchins  in  unfertilized  eggs  by  artificial  stimulation. 


us  with  materialism,  the  biggest  miracle  of  all.  Besides,  men 
of  science  to-day  do  believe  in  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus,  just  as 
Luke  did  before  them.  And  he  was  also  a  man  of  science. 

It  is  objected  that  Luke  has  simply  followed  blindly  the 
heathen  myths  which  tell  of  gods  becoming  men.  Some  have 
found  analogues  in  Babylonian  mythology,  some  in  Greek 
mythology,  some  in  Jewish  theology.  But  none  of  them  gives 
us  a  real  Virgin  Birth.  They  each  contradict  the  other.  No 
real  connection  with  Christianity  is  shown.  "The  Jewish 
theories  confute  the  Gentile;  the  Gentile  the  Jewish;  the  new 
Babylonian  theory  destroys  both  and  itself  perishes  with 
them." l  Harnack,2  who  counts  the  story  as  legend,  yet  knocks 
the  "myth"  theories  in  the  head:  "Nothing  that  is  mytho 
logical  in  the  sense  of  Greek  or  Oriental  myth  is  to  be  found 
in  these  accounts;  all  here  is  in  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  most  of  it  reads  like  a  passage  from  the  historical  books  of 
that  ancient  volume." 

It  is  objected  that  the  very  beauty  and  charm  of  Luke's 
narrative  proves  that  it  is  all  a  legend.  "That,  as  an  a  priori 
statement,  I  deny.  S.  Luke  may  be  artistic,  but  so  is  God." 3 
The  point  is  that  the  persons  and  the  poems  in  Luke  1  and  2 
suit  the  actual  events  even  better  than  they  suit  Luke's  story. 
The  steps  of  God  have  a  rhythm  that  puts  to  shame  our  noblest 
measures.  If  God  is  at  work  in  the  birth  of  Jesus,  everything 
else  is  simple  enough.  The  supreme  art  of  Luke  lies  in  telling 
the  story  as  it  was.  Ramsay*  has  biting  sarcasm  for  critics 
that  cannot  be  satisfied:  "Luke  has  already  been  proved  in  the 
process  of  discovery  to  be  correct  in  almost  every  detail  of  his 
statement"  (in  Luke  2: 1-3).  "The  story  is  now  established, 
and  the  plea  now  is  that  Luke's  story  is  a  legend  because  it  is 
true  to  facts."  We  do  not  have  to  say  that  Luke  had  the 
same  concepts  that  Mary  had  at  each  point.  "  That  there  was 
a  more  anthropomorphic  picture  of  the  messenger  in  Luke's 
mind  than  there  was  in  Mary's  I  feel  no  doubt.  Yet  I  believe 
that  Luke  was  translating  as  exactly  as  he  could  into  Greek 
that  which  he  had  heard.  He  expresses  and  thinks  as  a  Greek 
that  which  was  thought  and  expressed  by  a  Hebrew."5  I 

1  Orr,  The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus,  p.  181. 

2  Date  of  the  Acts  and  Synoptic  Gospels,  p.  156. 

3  Carpenter,  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  p.  166. 

4  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  226. 

5  Ramsay,  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  13.    Cf .  p.  255. 


heartily  agree  with  Carpenter1  when  he  says  of  these  events: 
"I  believe  that  they  were  beyond  the  power  of  either  Luke  or 
Mary  to  invent,  though  their  meaning  was  not  beyond  the 
power  of  Mary  to  apprehend.  That  experience,  described  so 
briefly,  so  simply,  so  plainly,  yet  without  a  single  word  that 
could  offend  the  most  delicate  purity,  I  take  to  be  the  Con 
ception  of  the  Holy  Child." 

It  is  even  objected  that  the  silence  of  Jesus  concerning  his 
divine  birth  discredits  the  narrative  in  Matthew  and  Luke. 
That  is  an  utterly  absurd  demand.  From  the  nature  of  the 
case  Jesus  could  not  say  anything  on  that  subject.  But  when 
only  twelve  years  old  he  does  reveal  a  consciousness  that  God 
is  his  Father  in  a  peculiar  sense  (Luke  2:49).  He  often  in 
sisted  on  this  point  (John  5:18;  8:19;  10:25)  in  a  way  to 
enrage  his  enemies,  who  finally  accused  him  of  blasphemy  for 
this  very  thing  (Matt.  26 :  63  f.). 

It  is  not  claimed  that  all  the  difficulty  concerning  the  Virgin 
Birth  of  Jesus  has  been  removed.  We  live  in  a  world  that  has 
recovered  the  sense  of  wonder.  The  greatness  of  God  over 
shadows  all.  The  discovery  of  radium  has  made  men  of 
science  humble.  Astronomy  has  enlarged  our  ideas  of  God. 
Einstein  has  modified  Galileo  and  Newton.  Scientists  gaze 
into  the  heavens  with  fresh  awe.  And  even  men  to-day  can 
fly  in  the  air.  Loeb  claims  that  by  artificial  stimulus  he  has 
made  fertile  infertile  eggs  of  some  forms  of  sea-life  (the  sea- 
urchin).  If  Loeb  can  do  this,  cannot  God?  "God  laid  his 
hand  on  the  deepest  spring  of  man's  being  when  His  Son  came 
to  us '  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary.' "  2 
All  things  considered,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  Virgin  Birth  of 
Jesus  is  overwhelmingly  attested.  We  have  seen  the  strength 
of  the  witness  of  Luke  and  the  independent  testimony  of 
Matthew.  John's  Gospel  really  supports  them.  There  is 
nothing  contrary  to  this  view  in  the  New  Testament  save  the 
erroneous  reading  of  the  Sinaitic  Syriac  for  Matt.  1 : 16,  which 
is  itself  contradicted  by  its  own  text  for  Matt.  1 : 18-20. 

But  the  question  goes  deeper  than  the  witness  of  documents 
or  the  interpretation  of  Luke.  Carpenter3  puts  it  fairly: 
"Matters  of  this  sort,  involving  belief  or  disbelief  in  the  doc- 

1  Op.  dt.,  p.  168. 

2  Father  Paul  Bull,  God  and  Our  Soldiers,  p.  244. 
8  Op.  tit.,  p.  158. 


trine  of  the  Virgin  Birth,  are  not  determined,  and  cannot  be 
determined,  by  sheer  literary  and  historical  criticism." 

We  are  confronted  by  the  fact  of  Christ,  the  most  tremen 
dous  fact  in  human  history.  All  efforts  to  prove  that  Jesus 
never  lived,  but  is  a  myth,  have  failed  signally.  All  efforts  to 
separate  "Jesus"  and  "Christ"  have  likewise  failed  from  the 
days  of  Cerinthus  with  his  "^Eon  Christ"  coming  upon  "Jesus" 
at  his  baptism  to  the  recent  "Jesus  or  Christ"  controversy.1 
The  historic  Jesus  and  the  Christ  of  faith  confront  us  in  Mark 
and  in  Q  (the  Logia  of  Jesus),  our  earliest  known  documents 
concerning  Jesus.  Besides,  Christianity  is  the  vital  force  for 
human  uplift  in  the  world.  Christ  to-day  is  the  hope  of  the 

Thinking  men  have  to  account  for  the  fact  and  the  force  of 
Christ.  We  have  the  view  of  Luke.  It  does  account  for  the 
phenomenon  of  Jesus.  If  we  reject  it,  we  must  have  an  alter 
native  view.  There  are  those  who  think  that  the  natural 
birth  of  Jesus  meets  all  the  demands  of  a  real  Incarnation  and 
who  are  disposed  to  reject  the  reports  in  Matthew  and  Luke  as 
legends  or  myths.  Every  one  must  speak  what  he  sees  on 
this  subject.  For  myself,  apart  from  setting  aside  these  two 
narratives  and  the  consequent  slur  on  Mary,  who  was  not  yet 
married,  the  philosophical  difficulty  is  measurably  enhanced 
by  denial  of  the  Virgin  Birth.  That  view  gives  us  the  picture 
of  a  God-possessed  man,  but  not  quite  the  essential  union  of 
God  and  man.  The  Cerinthian  Gnostic  held  that  the  divine 
Christ  came  upon  the  man  Jesus  at  his  baptism  and  left  him 
on  the  Cross. 

Carpenter2  has  no  doubt  that  the  "Incarnation  principle  is 
more  clearly  exhibited  in  the  doctrine  of  a  Virgin  Birth  than 
in  any  other."  For  myself  I  cannot  conceive  of  a  real  Incar 
nation  of  God  in  any  other  way.  Some  men  think  that  they 
can  conceive  of  an  Incarnation  of  God  in  Jesus  even  if  Joseph 
was  his  actual  father.  They  are  certainly  honest  in  their  view, 
but  it  does  not  satisfy  one.  It  greatly  increases  the  difficulties 
for  me.  Sir  W.  F.  Barrett3  quotes  F.  C.  S.  Schiller  as  saying: 
"A  mind  unwilling  to  believe,  or  even  undesirous  to  believe, 
our  weightiest  evidence  must  ever  fail  to  impress.  It  will 
insist  on  taking  the  evidence  in  bits  and  rejecting  item  by  item. 

1  Cf .  Hibbert  Journal  Supplement  for  1909.  *  Op.  tit.,  p.  159. 

8  Preface  to  On  the  Threshold  of  the  Unseen. 


The  man  who  announces  his  intention  of  waiting  until  a 
single  bit  of  absolutely  conclusive  evidence  turns  up,  is  really 
a  man  not  open  to  conviction,  and  if  he  be  a  logician,  he  knows 

The  testimony  of  Luke  concerning  the  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus 
is  part  of  the  larger  problem  of  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  in 
human  flesh.  That  question  raises  the  greatest  of  all  issues, 
the  fact  and  the  nature  of  God,  of  man,  of  sin,  of  redemption,1 
of  law,  of  miracle,  of  life,  of  matter,  of  spirit.  The  angel 
Gabriel  said  to  Mary:  "Wherefore  also  that  which  is  to  be 
born  shall  be  called  holy"  (Luke  1 : 35).  Peter  says  that 
"he  did  no  sin"  (I  Peter  2:22).  John  asserts  that  "in  him 
was  no  sin"  (I  John  3:5).  Paul  declares  that  "he  knew  no 
sin"  (II  Cor.  5 : 21).  The  author  of  Hebrews  (4 : 15)  says  that 
Jesus  was  "without  sin."  Jesus  himself  claimed  sinlessness 
(John  8:46).  "This  problem  of  an  absolutely  Holy  One  in 
our  sinful  humanity:  How  did  it  come  about?  Can  nature 
explain  it?"2  Bruce3  has  the  answer:  "A  sinless  man  is  as 
much  a  miracle  in  the  moral  world  as  a  Virgin  Birth  is  a  mira 
cle  in  the  physical  world."  It  remains  true  that  the  best 
explanation  of  the  whole  truth  about  Jesus  lies  in  the  inter 
pretation  given  by  Luke  in  the  opening  chapters  of  his  Gospel. 

1  The  sinlessness  of  Jesus  is  not  without  moral  value  if  he  is  God  as 
well  as  man.    He  fought  temptation,  as  we  know,  and  kept  himself  free 
from  sin.    He  had  a  clean  start,  and  because  of  his  sinlessness  did  not 
have  to  make  atonement  for  sin  of  his  own. 

2  Orr,  The  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ,  p.  191. 
8  Apologetics,  p.  410. 



"This  was  the  first  enrolment  made  when  Quirinius  was  governor 
of  Syria.  And  all  went  to  enrol  themselves,  every  one  to  his 
own  city.  And  Joseph  also  went  up  from  Galilee,  out  of  the  city 
of  Nazareth,  into  Judea,  to  the  city  of  David,  which  is  called 
Bethlehem,  because  he  was  of  the  house  and  family  of  David;  to 
enrol  himself  with  Mary,  who  was  betrothed  to  him,  being  great 
with  child"  (Luke  2:  2-5). 

Was  Jbdfiy  born  in  Bethlehem  ?  Did  the  Romans  have  a 
periodical  census?  Was  Quirinius  twice  governor  of  Syria? 
Is  Luke  a  credible  historian  ? 

1.  A  Crucial  Passage.  —  Luke  2  :  1-7  has  been  furiously 
assailed  by  the  critics  as  a  bundle  of  blunders,  if  not  worse. 
"  Wilcken  speaks  of  the  passage  Luke  2  :  1-3  as  *  the  Lukan 
legend'  (das  Lukas-legende)."2  The  theological  critics  were 
more  severe  than  historians  like  Mommsen  and  Gardthausen. 
It  is  only  fair  to  say  that  we  owe  the  clearing  up  of  the  com 
plicated  issues  in  this  passage  to  Ramsay  just  as  we  can  thank 
Hawkins  and  Harnack  for  strengthening  the  case  for  Luke's 
use  of  Mark  and  the  Logia  and  Hobart  for  the  light  on  the 
medical  language  of  Luke.  Ramsay3  tells  how  a  German 
critic  sharply  challenged  his  championship  of  Luke  in  St. 
Paul  the  Traveller  by  asking  this  query:  "If  Luke  is  a  great 
historian,  what  would  the  author  of  this  book  make  of  Luke 
2:1-3?"  Ramsay  adds  that  "nothing  more  was  needed. 
This  brief  question  was  sufficient.  It  was  at  that  time  ad 
mitted  on  all  hands  that  the  statements  in  that  passage  are 
entirely  unhistorical.  Not  only  did  theological  critics  brush 
them  aside  as  incredible,  every  one  that  had  any  acquaintance 
with  Roman  imperial  history  regarded  them  as  false  and  due 
either  to  blundering  or  to  pure  invention."4  The  issue  was 
put  up  squarely  to  Ramsay,  who  had  ranked  Luke  as  a  his 
torian  of  the  first  rank.  "A  number  of  the  German  critics, 

1  The  Biblical  Review,  October,  1920. 

2  Ramsay,  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  225. 

•  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  223.  *  Ibid. 



followed  by  many  outside  of  Germany,  used  until  recently  to 
say  without  hesitation  that  Augustus  never  issued  any  decree 
ordering  a  census,  that  there  never  was  under  the  empire  any 
regular  system  of  census,  that  where  any  casual  census  was 
held  the  presence  of  the  wife  was  not  required  but  only  of  the 
husband,  and  that  his  presence  was  never  required  at  his  origi 
nal  home." l  Luke  said  all  these  things  which  the  modern 
critics  flatly  deny. 

Who  is  right,  Luke  or  the  critics?  The  unfair  attitude 
toward  Luke  has  been  the  assumption  that  he  was  bound  to 
be  wrong  because  he  stood  unsupported  by  other  ancient 
authorities.  It  is  not  so  much  that  they  contradict  Luke  as 
that  they  do  not  give  the  items  that  he  records.  /  «It  is  coolly 
assumed  that  Luke  is  of  no  value  as  a  historian  wherrhe  stands 
alone.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  precisely  when  the  historian 
stands  alone  that  his  real  worth  as  a  writer  is  put  to  the  test. 
We  see  then  whether  he  is  a  mere  traditionalist  or  has  made 
original  investigation  for  the  facts.  "Their  hostility  to  Luke 
arose  out  of  their  refusal  to  admit  the  superhuman  element 
in  the  government  of  the  world."2  This  prejudice  led  Baur 
and  the  Tubingen  school  to  deny  that  Luke  wrote  the  Gospel 
and  the  Acts  and  to  claim  that  the  books  were  late  party  pam 
phlets  of  the  second  century. 

Even  now  the  same  distrust  of  Luke  as  a  reliable  writer  sur 
vives  on  the  part  of  some  who  accept  the  Lukan  authorship 
and  the  early  date  of  both  Gospel  and  Acts.  There  is  a  dis 
tinct  "return  to  tradition"  on  both  these  points,  a  movement 
led  by  Harnack  and  followed  by  men  like  Kirsopp  Lake  and 
C.  C.  Torrey.  "The  real  significance  of  the  'return  to  tradi 
tion  '  in  literary  criticism  consists  in  the  support  that  it  affords 
to  those  who  have  not  decided  to  reject  the  supernaturalistic 
view  of  Christian  origins."3  The  great  majority  of  radical 
critics  have  refused  to  follow  Harnack  in  his  conclusions  about 
Luke's  writings.  Those  who  do  follow  him  refuse  to  admit 
the  reality  of  the  miraculous  element.  But  it  has  become 
difficult  to  discredit  Luke  on  that  ground  if  he  wrote  within 
twenty  years  of  the  events. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  225. 

2  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  225. 

3  Machen,  "Recent  Criticism  of  the  Book  of  Acts"  (Princeton  Review, 
October,  1919,  p.  592). 


But  did  Luke  make  a  bad  bungle  of  the  facts  in  the  Gospel 
2 : 1-7  ?    To  the  testimony  let  us  turn. 

2.  The  Two  Bethlehems. — It  is  actually  charged  that  Luke 
has  confused  the  Bethlehem  in  Galilee  (Zebulon)  about  seven 
miles  northeast  of  Nazareth  with  Bethlehem  of  Judea.    Usener 
makes  this  charge1  and  urges  also  that  the  author  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  (7 : 41  f.)  was  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  born 
in  Bethlehem  of  Judea.    This  is  surely  a  curious  argument 
when  the  people  in  John  7 : 42  quote  the  passage  in  Micah  5 :  2 
with  the  prophecy  that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  born  there. 
There  are  two  Bethlehems,2  to  be  sure,  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  Luke  is  wrong.    He  is  supported  by  Matt.  2:6.    The  two 
distinct  traditions  (from  Joseph  and  from  Mary)  locate  the 
birth  of  Jesus  at  Bethlehem  in  Judea.    It  is  true  that  Mark 
is  silent  as  he  is  about  the  fact  of  the  birth  itself.    We  have 
seen  that  John3  assumes  a  knowledge  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 
But  for  Matthew  and  Luke  one  might  suppose  (cf.  Luke  2 :  39) 
that  Jesus  was  born  at  Nazareth.    But  Luke  is  held  to  be  dis 
credited  on  this  point  because  of  his  alleged  blunders  concern 
ing  the  census  and  Quirinius,  but  without  any  real  basis  in 

3.  "The  Whole  World."— Luke  is  charged  with  historical 
looseness  in  saying  that  "all  the  world"4  was  to  be  enrolled. 
He  might  at  least  be  allowed  the  use  of  a  harmless  hyperbole 
in  the  popular  language  of  the  time.    Surely,  no  one  would 
accuse  Luke  of  meaning  that  Augustus  meant  his  decree  to 
apply  to  India  and  China  or  even  to  Parthia  and  western 
Germany,  where  Rome  did  not  rule.    The  civilized  world  at 
that  time  was  the  Roman  world,  the  Mediterranean  world. 
Luke  reports  the  Jewish  rabbis  in  Thessalonica  as  accusing 
Paul  and  his  company  of  having  "turned  the  world  upside 
down"  (Acts  17:63),  meaning,  of  course,  the  Roman  Empire. 
Demetrius  hi  Ephesus  called  a  meeting  of  the  workmen  and 
roused  them  to  fury  by  saying  that  Paul  brought  into  disrepute 
the  worship  of  Diana,  "whom  all  Asia  and  the  world  worship- 
peth"  (Acts  19:27).    It  is  pettifogging  criticism  to  pick  at 
Luke's  language  in  the  Gospel  (2:1)  on  this  point. 

1  Encycl.  Biblica. 

2  Cf .  Sanday,  Sacred  Sites  of  the  Gospels,  p.  25. 

3  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  98. 

4  Tcocoav  -rijv  oJ 


4.  Herod's  Kingdom. — Ramsay1  makes  a  sober  argument  to 
prove  from  Strabo  and  Appian  that  the  subject  or  vassal 
kingdoms  were  as  really  under  the  Roman  rule  as  the  prov 
inces  (imperial  and  senatorial).    It  is  perfectly  plain  that  the 
kingdom  of  Herod  in  Palestine  was  required  to  pay  tribute  to 
Rome,  but  critics  deny  that  the  decree  of  Augustus  applied 
to  Syria,  and  if  it  did,  not  to  Palestine.    Herod  was  in  high 
favor  with  Augustus,  but  he  came  near  losing  his  crown  and 
his  head  when  he  sent  Nicolaus  of  Damascus  to  Augustus,  to 
defend  him  against  the  charge  of  treason  against  Rome  made 
by  Syllseus  in  the  matter  of  the  Arabian  uprising.2    Herod  was, 
after  all,  only  a  vassal  king.    Herod  knew  after  that  beyond 
question  that  his  was  a  dependent  kingdom,  as  were  all  king 
doms  in  the  Roman  Empire.    But  if  the  order  of  Augustus 
for  a  general  census  came  shortly  after  his  estrangement, 
Herod  would  naturally  be  a  bit  reluctant  to  respond  readily. 
It  was  a  bitter  pill,  no  doubt,  for  Herod  and  for  the  Jews  to 
swallow,  for  it  was  a  public  and  general  acknowledgment  of 
subjection  to  Rome. 

5.  The  Census. — In  particular  it  has  been  objected  that 
Augustus  never  ordered  a  general  census  of  the  empire.    Ram 
say3  is  careful  to  note  precisely  what  Luke  does  say.    He  does 
not  represent  Augustus  as  ordering  "  that  a  single  census  should 
be  held  of  the  whole  Roman  world,"  but  "there  went  out  a 
decree  from  Caesar  Augustus  that  all  the  world  should  be 
enrolled."4    Ramsay  properly  insists  on  the  present  tense  of 
"should  be  enrolled."    Malalas5  wrongly  uses  the  aorist  tense 
in  referring  to  what  Luke  says.     "It  is  not  stated  or  implied 
by  Luke  that  the  system  was  actually  put  into  force  univer 
sally.    The  principle  of  universal  enrolments  for  the  empire 
was  laid  down  by  Augustus;  but  universal  application  of  the 
principle  is  not  mentioned.    That  point  was  a  matter  of  indif 
ference  to  Luke." 6    But,  while  this  is  true,  the  natural  infer 
ence  from  Luke's  words  is  that  the  principle  was  applied  and 
that  there  was  a  regular  system  of  periodic  censuses  not  only 

1  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  pp.  118-124. 

2  Cf.  Josephus,  Ant.  XV,  x. 

3  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  123. 

4  IJjtjXOsv  B6f[jia  xap<i  xafaapo?  A&yo&JTau  dcxoYP<fc<i>sa0ai  xacav  T^V  ofxou^vrjv. 

5  Quoted  by  Ramsay,  ibid.,  p.  124.    dxoypa<i>ijvac. 

6  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  125. 


for  Syria  and  Palestine,  but  for  the  whole  of  the  empire.  Be 
sides,  we  now  know,  what  Ramsay  did  not  in  1898,  that  Augus 
tus's  bold  governmental  plan  for  a  census  was  successful.  We 
have  evidence  for  its  operation  in  both  West  and  East,  though 
most  for  the  East.1 

But  twenty  years  ago  we  had  no  knowledge  of  such  a  period 
ical  census  system  in  the  Roman  Empire.  "The  idea  that 
such  a  system  could  have  existed  in  the  East,  without  leaving 
any  perceptible  signs  of  its  existence  in  recorded  history,  would 
have  been  treated  with  ridicule,  as  the  dream  of  a  fanatical 
devotee,  who  could  believe  anything  and  invent  anything  in 
the  support  of  the  testimony  of  Luke."  2  But  epigraphic  and 
archaeological  research  has  proven  this  very  thing,  and  Luke 
stands  vindicated  before  all  the  world  against  a  generation  of 
infallible  critics  who  applied  the  argument  from  silence  against 
him  with  deadly  effect.  Was  there  such  a  periodical  enrol 
ment  in  the  Syrian  province  ?  Was  Christ  born  at  Bethlehem 
at  the  time  of  the  first  of  the  series  ?  Ramsay3  frankly  admits 
that  Luke's  "credit  as  a  historian  is  staked  on  this  issue." 
Luke  not  only  speaks  of  "the  first  enrolment"4  in  Luke  2  :  2, 
but  in  Acts  5  :  37  he  speaks  of  "the  days  of  the  enrolment."5 
In  Acts  5:37  Luke  means  by  "the  census"  the  great  census, 
"the  epoch-making  census  taken  about  A.  D.  7,  when  Judea 
had  just  been  incorporated  in  the  Roman  Empire  as  part  of 
the  province  of  Syria."6  Luke  is  clearly  committed  to  the 
idea  of  a  distinction  between  the  first  census  in  Luke  2  :  2  and 
the  great  census  in  Acts  5  :  37.  Is  he  correct  ? 

The  proof  is  at  hand.  Ramsay7  shows  that  already  Clement 
of  Alexandria  "knew  of  some  system  of  enrolment,  either  in 
the  empire  as  a  whole,  or  at  least  in  the  province  of  Syria.  His 

1  Ramsay,  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  246. 

2  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  126. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  127. 

4  dxoYpa^fj  •rcpt&TYj.    A  very  large  number  of  the  papyri  are  census  papers. 
The  oldest  certainly  dated  is  probably  A.  D.  34,  but  P.  Oxy.,  II,  254 
"probably  belongs  to  A.  D.  20"   (Moulton  and  Milligan,   Vocabulary, 
p.  60).    Grenfell  and  Hunt  think  that  P.  Oxy.,  II.,  256  may  even  belong 
to  A.  D.  6.    A  very  early  instance  of  the  annual  household  enrolment, 
XOCT'  otxfov  dhcorpa(|>Tj,  is  seen  in  P.  Petr.,  Ill,  59  (d),  of  the  Ptolemaic  period. 

8  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem?,  p.  127. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  128.    Clement's  words  (Strom,  I,  21,  147)  mean  this:  foe  TPWTO 


use  of  the  plural  and  the  word  'first'  force  this  inference  upon 
us."  Clement  of  Alexandria  lived,  of  course,  in  Egypt  and 
knew  conditions  there.  Did  he  have  any  other  information 
than  that  which  Luke  gives  us  ?  He  makes  the  definite  state 
ment  that  the  system  of  enrolments  in  Syria  began  with  the 
one  at  which  the  birth  of  Jesus  took  place.1 

It  had  been  suggested  that  the  "Indictional  Periods"  of 
fifteen  years,  known  in  the  fourth  century  (see  Rainer  Papyri), 
began  with  the  first  census  of  Quirinius.2  If  so,  the  first  cen 
sus  would  come  B.  C.  3.  But  three  scholars,3  one  after  the 
other,  made  the  discovery  that  fourteen  years  was  the  cycle 
for  the  enrolments  in  Egypt  in  the  early  Roman  empire.  The 
same  Greek  word  occurs  in  the  papyri  that  Luke  employs  for 
"  enrolment." 4  The  actual  census  papers  have  been  found  for 
these  enrolments  in  Egypt.  "It  is  proved  that  enrolments 
were  made  for  the  years  ending  in  the  summer  of  A.  D.  90,  104, 
118,  132  and  so  on  till  230." 5  No  papyrus  as  yet  shows  a 
census  for  A.  D.  76  under  Vespasian,  but  it  is  obvious  that  one 
was  held. 

"Actual  census  papers  have  been  found  of  the  periodic  year 
62  (and  also  34)  after  Christ.  Indirect  references  occur  to  the 
census  of  A.  D.  20  and  48.  Grenfell  and  Hunt  rightly  argue 
that  Augustus  must  have  originated  this  cycle.  Beyond  this 
there  is  no  certainty,  and  we  must  await  the  discovery  of  fresh 
material." 6  The  next  census  would  be  A.  D.  6,  the  one  that 
Luke  mentions  in  Acts  5 : 37.  The  first  census  (Luke  2 :  2) 
would  then  come  B.  C.  8.  An  enrolment  paper  has  been  found 
in  Egypt  with  the  same  officials  that  belong  to  the  sixth  year 
of  Tiberius.  "Hence  the  paper  belongs  to  the  census  of 
A.  D.  20  and  proves  conclusively  my  theory  as  to  the  origin 
of  the  Periodic  Enrolments  from  Augustus." 7  Surely,  after  the 
overwhelming  evidence  of  the  papyri  on  the  periodical  enrol 
ments  in  Egypt,  one  hardly  has  the  hardihood  to  accuse  Luke 
of  error  in  mentioning  the  first  two,  for  which  as  yet  we  have 

1  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Barn  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  129. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  130. 

3Kenyon,   Classical  Review,  March,   1893,  p.   110;  Wilcken,  Hermes, 
1893,  pp.  203  ff.;  Viereck,  Philologus,  1893,  pp.  219  ff. 
4  dc-rcoYpa^Tfj. 
6  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  132. 

6  Ramsay,  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  256. 

7  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  x. 


no  papyri  data.  The  inference  is  now  wholly  on  Luke's  side 
and  in  his  favor.  The  Augustan  census  system1  has  been 
established  by  irrefragable  evidence. 

It  is  true  that  B.  C.  8  comes  too  soon  for  the  other  evidence 
for  the  birth  of  Jesus,  which  points  to  B.  C.  6-5  as  the  probable 
time.  But  it  has  to  be  remembered  that  in  Egypt  and  Asia 
Minor  the  year  began,  not  January  1,  as  in  Rome,  "but  on 
some  day  in  the  late  summer  and  autumn."2  We  have  seen 
that  Herod  sat  uneasily  on  his  throne  in  Judea.  He  had  to 
please  both  Augustus  and  the  Jews.  The  Jews  hated  the 
Roman  yoke  and  Roman  customs  and  held  tenaciously  to 
their  own  traditions.  The  second  census  after  the  deposition 
of  Archelaus  in  A.  D.  6  caused  incipient  insurrection  against 
Rome,  as  Josephus  tells  us  (Ant.  XVIII,  1:1).  Hence  it  is 
more  than  probable  that  the  census  was  slow  in  moving  off  in 
Palestine.  Herod  would  postpone  it  as  long  as  he  could  and 
until  brought  to  time  by  Augustus.  The  first  census,  besides, 
would  be  harder  to  execute  on  time.  Ramsay3  tells  us  that 
"the  first  enrolment  in  Syria  was  made  in  the  year  8-7  B.  C., 
but  a  consideration  of  the  situation  in  Syria  and  Palestine 
about  that  time  will  show  that  the  enrolment  in  Herod's 
Kingdom  was  probably  delayed  for  some  time  later."  Besides, 
Herod  was  probably  a  year  or  more  in  putting  it  through  after 
it  was  started  in  Palestine.  There  is,  therefore,  no  real  difficulty 
as  to  the  date.  The  new  discoveries  concerning  the  cycle  of 
the  Augustan  census  will  allow  a  date  around  6-5  B.  C.,  and 
that  is  in  accord  with  what  we  know  otherwise  concerning  the 
date  of  Christ's  birth.  Turner  in  his  article  on  "Chronology 
of  the  New  Testament"  (Hastings's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible) 
concludes  by  five  converging  lines  of  evidence  that  7-6  B.  C. 
is  the  probable  date  of  the  birth  of  Jesus.  Luke  has  met  a 
triumphant  vindication  in  the  fact  of  the  census  cycle  under 
Augustus  and  Christ's  birth  at  the  time  of  the  first.  But  the 
critics  are  not  yet  done  with  this  famous  passage  in  Luke  2 : 1-7. 

6.  The  Enrolment  by  Households. — Luke  says  (2:3):  "  And 
all  went  to  enroll  themselves,  every  one  to  his  own  city."  It  is 
charged  that,  even  if  there  was  a  Roman  census  by  Augustus, 

1Rainsay  devotea  Chap.  XX  to  this  subject  (Bearing  of  Recent  Dis 
covery,  pp.  255-274). 

2  Ramsay,  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  255. 

3  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  f,  p.  174. 


the  people  would  not  have  to  go  to  their  homes  for  the  enrol 
ment  to  be  made.  And  even  if  Joseph  went,  he  did  not  have 
to  take  Mary,  "  to  enrol  himself  with  Mary  who  was  betrothed 
to  him"  (2:5).  So  the  critics  made  merry  with  Luke's  pious 
fiction  and  legend  to  make  it  appear  that  Jesus  was  born  at 
Bethlehem  in  Judea  instead  of  in  Nazareth.1  Plummer  in  his 
great  Commentary  on  Luke  in  1896  stands  by  Luke's  veracity, 
though  he  is  not  able  to  show  that  it  is  true  (p.  46):  "How 
Bethlehem  came  to  be  the  Birthplace  of  Jesus  Christ,  although 
Nazareth  was  the  Home  of  His  Parents.  This  explanation  has 
exposed  Luke  to  an  immense  amount  of  criticism,  which  has 
been  expressed  and  sifted  in  a  manner  that  has  produced  a 
voluminous  literature." 

But  once  again  Luke  is  vindicated  in  his  view  that  it  was 
a  household  enrolment.  The  periodic  enrolment  shown  in 
Egypt2  was  by  households.  The  Romans  had  the  annual 
enrolments  for  property  valuations  as  we  do,  but  every  four 
teen  years  the  enrolment  by  households  took  place,  like  our 
ten-year  census,  in  which  one  "gave  a  complete  enumeration 
of  all  individuals  who  lived  in  the  house,  children,  relatives, 
etc.  In  one  case  twenty-seven  persons  are  enumerated  in  one 
paper  by  a  householder." 3 

But  why  did  Joseph  and  Mary  and  all  the  rest  go  to  their 
homes  ?  We  take  our  census  in  the  homes  as  the  Romans  did. 
Well,  for  one  thing,  it  was  done  in  Egypt.  In  Deissmann's 
Light  from  the  Ancient  East  (1910,  tr.,  pp.  268  ff.)  the  proof  is 
found  "that  this  was  no  mere  figment  of  St.  Luke  or  his  author 
ity,  but  that  similar  things  took  place  in  his  age."  Deissmann 
adds:  "Perhaps  the  most  remarkable  discovery  of  this  kind 
in  the  new  texts  is  a  parallel  found  some  time  ago  to  the  state 
ment  in  Luke  2 :  3,  which  has  been  so  much  questioned  on  the 
strength  of  mere  book  learning."  It  is  an  edict  of  G.  Vibius 
Maximus,  governor  of  Egypt,  104  A.  D.:  "The  enrolment  by 
household  being  at  hand,  it  is  necessary  to  notify  all  who  for 
any  cause  are  outside  their  homes  to  return  to  their  domestic 
hearths,  that  they  may  also  accomplish  the  customary  dispen 
sation  of  enrolment  and  continue  steadfastly  in  the  husbandry 

1  So  Loisy,  Les  Evangiles  synoptiqiies,  I,  p.  169,  calls  it  "un  anachronisme" 
"pour  faire  naltre  le  Christ  dans  la  patrie  de  David." 

2  The  title  is  always  dtxoypa^  XOCT'  obdav. 

8  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  146. 


that  belongeth  to  them."  This  is  certainly  a  most  amazing 
vindication  of  the  record  in  Luke.  Deissmann  (p.  269)  com 
ments  on  the  "cultural  parallelism  between  Egypt  and  the 
birthplace  of  Christianity." 

It  is  really  not  necessary  to  give  further  proof  of  Luke's 
accuracy  on  this  score.  But  Ramsay  makes  a  sharp  distinc 
tion  between  the  enrolment  in  Luke  2 : 1-7  and  that  in  Acts 
5 : 37.  The  latter  was  a  census  and  a  valuation  of  property 
because  Palestine  was  now  hi  A.  D.  6  made  a  Roman  province. 
"But  the  census  of  Herod  was  tribal  and  Hebraic,  not  anti- 
national.  It  was  wholly  and  utterly  unconnected  with  any 
scheme  of  Roman  taxation." l  The  "Roman  census  would  be 
made  according  to  the  existing  political  and  social  facts,  and 
would  not  require  that  persons  be  enrolled  according  to  their 
place  of  birth  or  origin." 2  We  have  only  to  think  that  Herod 
agreed  to  the  first  census  on  condition  that  it  be  a  tribal  cen 
sus  of  the  various  families,  a  thing  that  the  Jews  were  used  to 
and  would  not  resent  so  much.  "And  Joseph  also  went  up 
from  Galilee,  out  of  the  city  of  Nazareth,  into  Judea,  to  the 
city  of  David,  which  is  called  Bethlehem,  because  he  was  of 
the  house  and  family  of  David"  (Luke  2:4).  If  that  system 
of  household  enrolment  with  the  "return  to  their  domestic 
hearths"  was  allowed  in  Egypt,  it  would  surely  not  be  refused 
in  Palestine.  The  proof,  once  more,  is  complete.  Luke  has 
not  made  up  his  facts  to  suit  a  theory.  He  has  told  the  facts 
as  they  occurred  and  has  given  the  precise  reason  for  the 
journey  of  Joseph  from  Nazareth  to  Bethlehem,  "because  he 
was  of  the  house  and  family  of  David."  The  enrolment  in 
Palestine  is  both  by  household  (the  Roman  method)  and  by 
tribes  (the  Jewish). 

But  it  is  still  objected  that  Mary  need  not  have  gone  along 
with  Joseph.  "It  remains  difficult  to  understand  why  Mary 
should  have  accompanied  Joseph,  especially  if  it  be  a  fact  that 
she  was  at  that  time  only  ( betrothed'  to  him."3  Luke  does 
not  plainly  say  that  Mary  was  enrolled  with  Joseph,  though 
that  is  the  natural  way  to  take  his  language  "to  enroll  him 
self  with  Mary."4  The  Sinaitic  Syriac  manuscript  does  say, 

1  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  108.         2  Ibid.,  p.  106. 

3  Carpenter,  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  p.  153. 

4  dxoYpdtJwccjOat  cdv  Mapufy..     Plummer  (Comm.,  p.  52)  says  that  civ  Mapufy. 
must  be  taken  with  dcv^rj,  three  lines  away.    But  that  is  wholly  unnatural. 


"because  they  were  both  of  the  house  of  David."  That  I 
believe  to  be  the  fact.  I  think  also  that  Luke  gives  the  gene 
alogy  of  Mary,  while  Matthew  gives  that  of  Joseph.  At  any 
rate  Mary  "would  be  anxious  at  all  risks  not  to  be  separated 
from  Joseph,"  and  "after  what  is  related  in  Matt.  1:19  he 
would  not  leave  her  at  this  crisis."1  It  is  pertinent  also  to 
think  that  both  Joseph  and  Mary  would  be  anxious  for  the 
child  to  be  born  in  Bethlehem,  since  he  was  to  be  the  Messiah 
of  promise.  Before  the  birth  of  Queen  Victoria  her  father 
made  it  a  point  to  get  the  mother  back  on  English  soil,  so  that 
the  possible  heir  to  the  British  crown  should  be  born  in  Britain. 
Ramsay2  thinks  that  "the  wife,  as  well  as  the  head  of  the 
house,  had  to  go  to  the  proper  city  (or  for  some  reason  felt  it 
her  duty  to  go),  so  that  the  household  as  a  whole  might  be 
numbered  in  the  tribal  and  family  centre."  Certainly,  these 
are  reasons  enough  to  justify  Mary  in  her  course.  But,  alas, 
Wilcken  calls  the  narrative  a  legend,  "because  every  detail 
has  been  demonstrated  to  be  historically  correct.  There  is 
no  way  of  satisfying  those  people  who  have  made  up  their 

7.  The  Problem  of  Quirinius. — This  has  been  the  hardest 
tangle  to  unravel  of  all  in  the  tissue  of  errors  woven  round 
Luke  2 : 1-7.  Luke  seemed  so  obviously  in  error.  "This  was 
the  first  enrolment  made  when  Quirinius  was  governor  of  Syria" 
(Luke  2:2).  He  himself  in  Acts  5:37  refers  to  "the  enrol 
ment"  when  Judas  of  Galilee  rose  up  and  drew  away  some  of 
the  people  after  him  and  perished.  We  know  that  Quirinius 
was  governor  of  Syria  in  A.  D.  6,  when  that  census  was  taken 
which  so  angered  the  Jews  (Josephus,  Ant.  XVIII,  i,  1). 
Hence  it  was  argued  that  Luke  simply  blundered  and  dated 
this  census  under  Quirinius  at  the  time  of  the  birth  of  Christ, 
instead  of  A.  D.  6.  Lake4  actually  argues  that  the  birth  of 
Jesus  occurred  A.  D.  6,  but  that  view  is  wholly  unlikely  to 
win  favor.  Plummer5  says  about  Quirinius:  "We  must  be 
content  to  leave  the  difficulty  unsolved,"  but  he  considers  it 
"monstrous"  to  throw  away  the  whole  narrative  because  of 
this  "mistake  as  to  Cyrenius." 

1  Plummer,  Comm.,  p.  53. 

2  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem?,  p.  101. 

8  Ramsay,  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  273. 

*  The  Expositor,  Nov.,  1912,  pp.  462  f .  5  Comm.,  p.  50. 


It  is  Ramsay  again  who  has  cleared  the  matter  of  confusion 
by  a  series  of  inscriptions  that  bear  on  the  career  of  Quirinius. 
"The  conclusion  of  Mommsen,  of  Borghesi,  and  of  de  Rossi, 
that  Quirinius  governed  Syria  twice  has  been  generally  ac 
cepted  by  modern  scholars. "l  The  "Lapis  Tiburtinus"  is 
accepted  as  referring  to  Quirinius,2  and  contains  the  words 
"iterum  Syriam,"  "a  second  time  Syria."  The  Inscriptions  of 
^Emilius  Secundus  (Lapis  Vendusf  have  "P.  Sulpicio  Quirinio 
legatus  Augusti  Ccesaris"  and  "idem  jussu  Quirini  censum" 
It  is  not  clear  to  which  of  the  two  times  when  Quirinius  was 
governor  in  Syria  this  inscription  about  the  census  refers. 

But  Ramsay4  gives  an  inscription  from  Antioch  in  Pisidia, 
examined  by  himself  in  1912  and  in  1913  and  photographed 
by  Lady  Ramsay,  which  speaks  of  Gaius  Coristanius  Pronto 
as  "prefect  of  P.  Sulpicius  Quirinius  duumvir."*  This  inscrip 
tion  belongs  to  the  date  B.  C.  10-7.  In  the  village  of  Hissar- 
ardi,  close  to  Antioch,  Ramsay  found  another  inscription6 
where  the  same  man  is  called  "prefect  of  P.  Sulpicius  Quirinius 
duumvir"  and  "chief  of  engineers,  tribune  of  soldiers,  prefect 
of  a  Bosporan  cohort,"  and  also  "prefect  of  M.  Servilius." 
This  inscription  shows  "Quirinius  as  engaged  in  the  war  (the 
Homonadensian  War),  and  therefore  as  governor  of  Syria 
before  6  B.  C."  "It  is  also  a  crowning  step  in  the  proof  that 
the  story  in  Luke  2 : 1-3  is  correct."  The  proof  is  complete 
that  Quirinius  was  twice  "governor"  in  Syria,  though  not 
necessarily  in  the  same  way  each  time.  Luke  does  not  say 
that  Quirinius  was  propraetor  or  procurator  in  the  first  census, 
but  only  governor. 

"Thus  Quirinius  and  Servilius  were  governing  the  two  ad 
joining  provinces,  Syria-Cilicia  and  Galatia,  around  the  year 
8  B.  C.,  when  the  First  Census  was  made."7  Surely,  it  is  a 
remarkable  demonstration.  "The  exact  year  is  a  matter  of 
chronological  interest;  it  was  in  the  reign  of  King  Herod. 
Every  circumstance  narrated  by  Luke  has  been  conclusively 
shown  to  be  natural  and  probable.  The  circumstances  are 
those  which  ordinarily  accompanied  a  Roman  census,  and 

1  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Barn  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  109. 

'/&#.,  p.  273.  *Ibid.,  p.  274. 

4  Ramsay,  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  285. 

6  Prcefecto  P.  Sulpici  Quirini  duumviri.  6  Ibid.,  p.  291. 

7  Ramsay,  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  300. 


Quirinius  was  in  office  about  that  time  for  several  years."1 
For  all  these  years  the  record  in  Luke  2 : 1-7  has  stood  all  by 
itself,  the  butt  of  ridicule  by  historians  and  theologians.  Now 
the  rubbish-heaps  of  Egypt  and  the  stones  of  Asia  Minor  cry 
aloud  in  support  of  the  narrative.  The  enemies  of  Luke  are 
put  to  rout. 

But  it  may  still  be  said  that  Tertullian  (Adv.  Marc.,  iv,  19) 
states  that  Jesus  was  bora  when  Sentius  Saterninus  was  gov 
ernor  of  Syria  (B.  C.  9-6).  But  Ramsay  has  a  ready  solution 
for  this  objection.  He  admits  that  Tertullian  attempts  to 
correct  Luke  because  "the  first  periodic  enrolment  of  Syria 
was  made  under  Saterninus  in  B.  C.  8-7.  The  enrolment  of 
Palestine  was  delayed  by  the  census  described  until  the  late 
summer  or  autumn  of  B.  C.  6.  At  that  time  Varus  was  con 
trolling  the  internal  affairs  of  Syria,  while  Quirinius  was  con 
trolling  its  armies  and  directing  its  foreign  policy."  Tertullian 
"inferred  too  hastily"  that  the  enrolment  in  Palestine  was 
made  under  Saterninus.  "Luke,  more  accurately,  says  that 
the  enrolment  of  Palestine  was  made  while  Quirinius  was  act 
ing  as  leader  in  Syria."  Once  it  seemed  a  hopeless  task  to 
clear  up  all  the  blunders  charged  against  Luke  in  these  verses. 
But  it  has  been  done.  If  Ramsay  had  done  nothing  else  for 
New  Testament  scholarship,  his  name  would  deserve  to  be 
cherished  wherever  Luke  is  known  and  loved.  Luke  is  shown 
to  be  the  careful  and  accurate  historian  that  he  professed  to 
be.  There  is  a  veritable  romance  in  the  discovery  of  scraps 
of  papyri  in  Egypt  that  confirm  Luke  concerning  the  census 
system  of  Augustus,  which  is  ignored  by  all  the  ancient  histo 
rians  except  Luke,  the  greatest  of  them  all. 



"And  he  that  was  dead  sat  up,  and  began  to  speak.     And  he  gave 
him  to  his  mother"  (Luke  7  : 15). 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  miracles  of  Jesus  greatly  attracted 
Luke.  Was  he  credulous  in  his  report  of  the  wonders  wrought 
by  Jesus  ?  They  puzzle  us  and  they  probably  puzzled  him. 
We  do  not  have  to  think  of  miracle  as  a  violation  of  the  laws 
of  nature.  God  is  the  source  of  all  power  and  of  all  the  laws 
of  nature.  They  are  all  expressions  of  his  will.  If  a  personal 
God  controls  the  universe,  there  is  no  real  objection  to  believ 
ing  that  he  can  do  what  he  wills  to  do  at  any  time.  The  mod 
ern  theory  of  evolution  is  not  less,  but  more,  favorable  to  the 
belief  in  miracle  (Garvie,  Hastings's  One  Vol.  Diet,  of  the  Bible}. 
Sanday  says:  "I  fully  believe  that  there  were  miracles  in  the 
age  of  the  Gospels  and  Acts,  in  the  sense  of  ' wonderful  works' 
or  'mighty  works/  But  I  do  not  think  that  they  involve'  any 
real  breach  of  the  order  of  nature"  (Divine  Overruling,  p.  66). 
He  thinks  that  miracles  can  be  explained  as  all  in  harmony 
with  laws  of  nature,  that  were  once  unknown,  except  those 
that  have  been  exaggerated  in  the  telling.  It  is  not  necessary 
for  us  to  be  able  to  explain  the  miracle  in  order  for  it  to  be 
true.  We  must  remember  that  God  is  greater  than  the  laws 
of  nature  and  that  our  knowledge  of  nature  and  of  God  is  still 
very  limited.  It  is  doubtless  true  that  some  miracles  then 
would  not  be  called  miracles  by  us  to-day.  The  heart  of  the 
question  is  whether  God  ever  interposes  at  all  with  his  personal 
will.  I  believe  that  he  does  and  that  is  miracle. 

1.  Luke  a  Man  of  Science. — This  point  has  been  made  before, 
but  it  is  well  to  stress  it  again  just  here,  for  the  fact  has  been 
often  overlooked.  Luke's  witness  to  the  miracles  of  Jesus  has 
been  brushed  aside  as  the  credulous  ignorance  of  a  non-scien 
tific  age.  Each  age  plumes  itself  upon  the  scientific  progress 
over  the  rest.  The  word  science  is  simply  Latin  for  the  Greek 
gnosis,  our  knowledge.  Progress  in  knowledge  has  not  been 

1  The  Christian  Worker's  Magazine,  June,  1920. 


steady  and  uninterrupted  and  uniform.  Reactions  and  lapses 
come.  The  Renaissance  followed  the  Dark  Ages.  The  Dark 
Ages  belong  to  the  Christian  era  and  succeeded  a  period  of 
pagan  enlightenment.  We  must  not  forget  that  Plato  and 
Aristotle  lived  long  before  Luke's  day.  In  the  spring  and  sum 
mer  semester  of  1905  at  the  University  of  Oxford  over  a  hun 
dred  courses  of  lectures  on  Aristotle  were  offered.  Aristotle  is 
still  king  in  the  realm  of  pure  intellect.  The  late  Doctor  W.  H. 
Whitsitt,  for  long  Professor  of  Church  History  and  then 
President  of  the  Southern  Baptist  Theological  Seminary,  used 
to  talk  to  his  classes  of  the  time  when  "Plato  was  king  in  Zion" 
and  then  of  the  time  when  "Aristotle  was  king  in  Zion." 
Both  Plato  and  Aristotle  have  left  their  mark  on  Christian 

Not  simply  was  Luke  a  man  of  general  culture,  a  university 
man  familiar  with  current  literature  and  literary  methods, 
but  he  was  a  man  of  technical  training.  Since  Hobart's  re 
searches  concerning  the  medical  language  of  Luke,  it  is  no 
longer  possible  to  treat  Luke  as  a  "quack,"  a  charlatan,  or  an 
ignorant  practitioner;  He  was  a  trained  physician  like  Galen 
and  Hippocrates,  and  is  one  of  the  best  products  of  Greek  cul 
ture.  So  far  as  we  know,  he  was  the  first  man  of  science  to 
grapple  with  the  facts  and  forces  of  faith  and  science.  He  was 
superbly  equipped  for  his  task.  He  had  a  passion  for  the 
truth,  for  the  facts  of  nature  and  of  grace.  "No  other  man 
of  his  time  was  so  well  fitted  to  judge  r;ghtly  in  questions  in 
volving  both  science  and  faith;  and  this  ability  sprang  from 
the  nature  of  his  vivid  and  varied  Greek  mentality."1  So 
then  we  approach  Luke's  report  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus  with 
sincere  interest.  "His  testimony  to  the  miracles  is,  therefore, 
the  nearest  thing  possible  to  the  evidence  which  has  often  been 
desired  in  that  of  a  man  of  science." 2 

And  yet  Luke  is  discounted  by  some  for  the  very  reason 
that  he  is  a  physician.  So  Harnack3  instances  the  healing  of 
Malchus's  ear  as  a  case  in  point:  "This  is  a  flagrant  instance  of 
the  way  in  which  a  story  of  a  miracle  has  arisen,  and  of  what 
we  expect  from  Luke.  He  certainly  is  not  following  a  separate 
source  here;  but  because  he  thinks  it  ought  to  have  been  so, 

1  Homan,  Luke  the  Greek  Physician,  p.  12. 

2  Wace,  Intr.  St.  Bible  Encycl  (art.  "Miracles"). 

3  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  187,  note  4. 


he  makes  it  happen  so."  That  is  simply  intolerable  in  Har- 
nack.  Luke  is  here  ranked  no  higher  than  a  peddler  of  tales 
or  a  writer  of  mediaeval  miracle-plays,  or  a  dispenser  of  marvel 
lous  cures  by  a  group  of  "Christian  Science"  dupes.  When 
Luke  has  been  vindicated  by  modern  research  against  the 
whole  array  of  historians  and  critics  who  attacked  Luke  2 : 1-7, 
he  is  entitled  to  be  heard  on  his  own  account  before  it  is  assumed 
that  he  is  incompetent  and  insincere  and  even  hypocritical. 
Percy  Gardner1  follows  the  cue  of  Harnack  and  says:  "But 
when  we  speak  of  him  as  a  physician,  the  modern  mind  is  apt 
to  be  misled,  and  to  attribute  to  him  a  scientific  education, 
and  methods  of  investigation  such  as  are  commonly  used  in 
the  great  schools  of  medicine.  From  this  point  of  view  our 
author  is  very  far  removed."  Luke,  to  be  sure,  did  not  know 
the  evolutionary  hypothesis  or  the  germ  theory  of  disease,  but 
he  did  have  the  Greek  physician's  love  of  the  study  of  actual 
cases  and  of  drawing  his  theories  from  the  facts.  This  is  the 
heart  of  scientific  progress  and  Luke  is  in  the  line  of  succession. 
Gardner2  even  says,  "He  loves  a  good  miracle,"  as  if  to  dis 
credit  Luke's  testimony  on  the  subject.  Carpenter3  accepts 
this  view  of  Luke:  "Physician  though  he  was,  he  was  uncritical 
about  miracles."  Again:4  "He  was  undoubtedly  what  we 
should  call  a  truthful  person,  but  it  cannot  be  pretended  that 
he  had  the  scientific  zeal  of  the  best  modern  historians.  He 
took  pains  to  ascertain  facts,  but  he  was  not  alive  to  some 
of  the  perils  that  surround  historical  inquiry."  But  I  submit 
that  the  new  discoveries  justify  precisely  this  claim  concerning 

It  is  not  "pretended"  that  he  had  modern  views  of  science 
and  medicine,  nor  will  a  true  scientist  to-day  pretend  that 
present-day  theories  are  finalities.  The  twentieth  century  has 
brought  a  more  reverent  temper  on  the  part  of  scientists  con 
cerning  both  God  and  man.  No  one  claims  that  he  has  dis 
covered  the  ultimate  facts  concerning  nature.  The  very 
"atom,"  once  thought  to  be  absolute  and  indivisible,  is  now 
divided  into  electrons.  Modern  chemists,  like  the  alchemists 
of  Luke's  day,  claim  to  be  able  to  transmute  metals  by  the  aid 
of  radium,  and  to  make  diamonds  to  order  out  of  charcoal. 
He  is  a  bold  man  to-day  who  will  dare  to  say  what  man  can  or 

1  Cambridge  Biblical  Essays,  p.  386.  *  Ibid.,  p.  390, 

*  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  p.  83.  *Ibid,  p.  82. 


cannot  do.  The  Atlantic  Ocean  has  been  spanned  by  the 
aeroplane  in  a  single  flight.  One  disease  after  another  is  con 
quered  by  science.  Shall  we  limit  the  power  of  God  while  we 
enlarge  the  powers  of  man?  It  is  easier  to  believe  in  mighty 
works  by  God  because  man  himself  has  achieved  so  much.  If 
there  is  a  God  at  all,  He  is  greater  than  any  man  or  than  all 
men.  He  is  greater  than  the  universe  about  us.  We  see  the 
influence  of  spirit  upon  matter  in  our  own  bodies.  It  is  easier 
to  understand  how  God  who  is  Spirit  rules  over  matter  and 
makes  all  things  subject  to  His  will.  There  has  never  been  a 
day  when  it  was  easier  to  believe  in  miracles  than  now  and 
harder  to  tell  what  is  a  miracle.  We  can  well  believe  that 
some  of  the  miracles  wrought  by  Jesus  would  not  be  called 
miracles  by  all  men  to-day.  The  use  of  language  varies  with 
the  growth  of  ideas.  The  fundamental  question  is  the  fact 
of  Jesus  (his  birth,  his  work,  his  teaching,  his  character,  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  his  power  to-day  over  the  lives  of 

At  bottom  we  face  the  same  problem  that  Luke  faced.  In 
reality  we  know  not  one  whit  more  concerning  the  ultimate 
reality  than  Luke  did.  The  new  knowledge  of  our  day  has 
filled  us  with  awe  in  the  presence  of  God.  It  is  no  disgrace  for 
us  to-day  to  bow  before  the  fact  of  God  in  Christ  as  Luke  did. 
We  must  open  our  minds  to  learn  all  we  can,  but  the  pride  of 
intellectual  arrogance  must  not  blind  us  to  the  glory  of  God  in 
Christ.  Luke  saw  God  at  work  in  Christ  the  Great  Physician. 
No  physician  to-day  can  tell  precisely  how  medicine  cures 
disease  or  what  part  the  mind  plays  in  the  cure,  or  how  far  the 
will  of  God  operates  in  the  whole,  both  in  the  fight  that  nature 
makes  and  in  the  special  exercise  of  His  will  in  the  individual 
case.  The  physician  himself  often  rouses  the  will  of  the 
patient  to  victory  over  disease.  Can  God  not  do  the  same  ? 

2.  Luke  as  an  Eye-Witness  of  Paul's  Miracles.— Carpenter1 
has  a  curious  comment  concerning  Paul's  view  of  miracles: 
"It  may  readily  be  conceded  that  S.  Paul's  attitude  toward 
the  miraculous  is  much  truer  than  S.  Luke's."  That  remark 
can  only  mean  that  Paul  is  sceptical  concerning  the  miraculous 
or  that  Luke  is  credulous.  But  Paul  claimed  that  he  himself 
wrought  miracles,  a  thing  that  Luke  never  does.  "Truly  the 
signs  of  the  apostle  were  wrought  among  you  with  all  patience, 
1  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  p.  83. 


by  signs  and  wonders  and  mighty  works"  (II  Cor.  12:12). 
Paul  here  employs  precisely  the  three  words1  that  Luke  reports 
Peter  as  using  in  his  address  at  the  great  Pentecost  (Acts  2  :  22). 
So  in  Romans  15  :  18  f.  Paul  speaks  of  what  the  Holy  Spirit 
wrought  through  him  among  the  Gentiles  "in  the  power  of 
signs  and  wonders."  We  have  Paul's  first-hand  testimony 
concerning  his  own  miracles.  Besides,  Paul  testifies  to  the 
greatest  of  all  miracles  in  his  own  experience,  the  vision  of  the 
Risen  Christ  (I  Cor.  9  :  1;  15  :  8;  Gal.  1  :  16).  Paul  even  claims 
that  some  of  his  own  converts  wrought  miracles  (I  Cor.  12  :  9  f  ., 
28-30;  14:22;  Gal.  3:5).  These  instances  all  come  from 
Paul's  universally  acknowledged  Epistles.  It  is  hard  to  set 
aside  the  witness  of  a  man  of  Paul's  intellectual  acumen. 
There  were  "  Counterfeit  Miracles  "  (Warfield)  then  as  there  are 
now,  but  Paul's  miracles  do  not  come  in  that  category. 

We  have  other  autoptic  witnesses  to  the  miracles.  Mark's 
Gospel  reports  Peter's  description  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus.  If 
John  the  Apostle  is  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  we  have 
another  eye-witness  to  the  miracles  of  Jesus.  See  John  21  :  24. 
In  John's  Gospel  we  have  healings  of  the  sick  (4  :  16  ff.;  5:8; 
6:2;  9  :  6  f  .),  raising  the  dead  (11:44),  the  Resurrection  of 
Christ  (20  and  21)  and  miracles  over  inanimate  nature  (2:9; 
6  :  11  f.,  19;  21:  6). 

Percy  Gardner2  thinks  that  Luke  "  was  attracted  to  the  new 
faith  by  its  power  over  disease  and  evil  spirits."  Even  so,  we 
have  no  right  to  say  that  Luke  was  "taken  in"  by  Paul's  "pre 
tense"  to  work  miracles.  Luke  not  only  had  Paul's  word 
for  working  miracles,  but  in  the  "we"  sections  of  Acts  Luke 
records  miracles  which  he  himself  witnessed.  "It  should 
always  be  borne  in  mind  that  they  are  recorded  by  a  physician, 
who  was  an  eye-witness  of  them."3  In  these  cases,  therefore, 
we  have  a  sort  of  double  proof,  Paul's  general  claim  that  he 
worked  miracles  and  Luke's  testimony  to  seeing  him  do  them. 
It  is  wholly  gratuitous  to  say  that  Luke's  judgment  as  a  his 
torian  lapsed  when  miracles  came  before  him.  Let  us  examine 
some  of  the  cases  in  question  and  see  if  Luke's  treatment  of  the 
miracles  wrought  by  Paul  disqualifies  him  for  discussing  in  a 
credible  manner  the  miracles  of  Jesus. 

xctl  t^paccv  xal 
2  Cambridge  Biblical  Essays,  p.  386. 
8  Wace,  Intr.  St.  Bible  Encycl  (art.  "Miracles"). 


The  cure  of  the  ventriloquist  girl  (Acts  16 : 18)  is  in  point. 
The  poor  girl  had  a  "python." 1  Plutarch  says  that  a  ventrilo 
quist  was  called  a  python.  The  slave  girl  may  have  been 
diseased  in  her  mind  and  was  the  object  of  superstition  and  the 
victim  of  a  group  of  men  who  exploited  her  fortune-telling  for 
gain  as  men,  alas,  exploit  girls  for  base  gain.  The  poor  girl 
troubled  Paul,  Luke  and  the  rest,  "the  same  following  after 
Paul  and  us"  (Acts  16:17).  Luke  reports  Paul  as  charging 
"the  spirit  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  to  come  out  of  her. 
And  it  came  out  that  very  hour."  The  whole  subject  of 
demonology  is  a  dark  one,  but  modern  scientists  are  no  longer 
so  positive  that  evil  spirits  cannot  dominate  human  beings. 
Luke  saw  the  cure  of  this  girl,  sudden  and  instantaneous. 

Luke  was  a  witness  also  of  the  earthquake  and  the  release  of 
the  prisoners,  with  the  consequent  conversion  of  the  jailer 
(Acts  16 : 26-34).  He  does  not  report  the  earthquake  as  a 
miracle,  but  as  a  dispensation  of  providence  for  Paul  and 

Luke  saw  Paul  restore  to  life  the  lad  who  had  fallen  out  of 
the  window  at  Troas  during  Paul's  long  sermon  (Acts  20 :  9-12). 
Luke  is  careful  here  in  his  language.  He  says  the  boy  was 
"  taken  up  dead,"  but  he  implies  that  Paul  brought  him  round 
to  life  and  not  by  medical  means.  Luke  was  evidently  greatly 

We  have  already  discussed  Luke's  description  of  Paul  s 
shaking  off  the  viper  unharmed  (Acts  28 : 5),  which  Ramsay 
considers  a  constrictor,  a  non-poisonous  snake.  But  even  so, 
that  explanation  cannot  apply  to  the  cure  of  Publius  by  Paul's 
prayer  (Acts  28 :  8)  and  to  Luke's  further  practice  of  medicine 
in  the  island  (28 :  9  f.).  Luke  does  not  create  the  impression 
in  these  narratives  that  he  is  credulous  and  anxious  to  tell  the 
marvellous.  His  language  is  restrained  and  simple  and  quite 
that  of  a  scholar  who  weighs  his  words. 

3.  Luke's  Report  of  Miracles  in  Q  and  Mark. — In  Luke 
7 :  20-23  (=  Matt.  11 :  4-6)  Luke  reports  the  record  in  Q  (pos 
sibly  by  Matthew  the  publican,  himself  an  eye-witness  of  the 
miracles  of  Jesus)  of  the  words  of  Jesus  concerning  his  miracles. 
The  two  messengers  from  the  Baptist  in  prison  brought  his 
despairing  question  in  his  hour  of  gloom:  "Art  thou  he  that 
cometh  or  look  we  for  another?"  (Luke  7:19).  But  Jesus 


went  on  with  his  work,  as  if  not  heeding  the  inquiry.  "  In  that 
hour  he  cured  many  of  diseases  and  plagues  and  evil  spirits; 
and  on  many  that  were  blind  he  bestowed  sight"  (Luke  7 :  21). 
Then  Jesus  turned  to  the  messengers  and  said :  "  Go  your  way, 
and  tell  John  what  things  ye  have  seen  and  heard;  the  blind 
receive  their  sight,  the  lame  walk,  the  lepers  are  cleansed,  and 
the  deaf  hear,  the  dead  are  raised  up,  the  poor  have  good  tid 
ings  preached  unto  them."  This  was  the  cure  for  John's 
doubt  and  despair. 

We  have  seen  that  Q  preserves  the  oldest  tradition  about 
Christ  that  we  have.  It  may  even  belong  to  the  time  when 
Christ  was  alive  on  earth.  There  is  no  escape  from  the  fact 
that  Jesus  claimed  to  work  miracles  and  that  people  believed 
that  he  wrought  them.  Luke  had  seen  Paul  work  miracles. 
He  would  not  be  prejudiced  against  the  testimony  for  the  mira 
cles  of  Jesus.  But  did  he  not  sift  the  evidence  for  the  miracles 
of  Jesus,  as  he  claims  to  have  done  (Luke  1 : 1-4)  about  every 
thing  else?  In  Luke  7 : 1-10  (=  Matt.  8 :  5-13)  we  certainly 
have  a  quite  independent  record  of  the  same  event  that  Mat 
thew  narrates.  Luke  gives  the  two  embassies  from  the  cen 
turion  to  Jesus,  while  Matthew  fails  to  bring  out  these  details. 

Mark  gives  a  detailed  report  of  eighteen  miracles  of  Jesus. 
Of  these  Luke  also  reports  thirteen.  Luke  modifies  the  lan 
guage  in  certain  instances,  but  he  does  not  weaken  the  argu 
ment  for  the  real  interposition  of  divine  power  by  Christ. 
Two  of  them  are  nature  miracles  (the  stilling  of  the  storm 
and  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand).  The  rest  (counting  the 
drowning  of  the  swine  with  the  cure  of  the  demoniac)  are  cases 
of  healing. 

Few  to-day  will  take  the  position  of  Hume  that  miracles 
cannot  be  proven,  or  even  that  of  Huxley  that  we  can  know 
nothing  about  the  matter  at  all.  Fewer  still  assert  that  mira 
cles  cannot  happen.  Goethe  said  that  a  voice  from  heaven 
would  not  convince  him  that  water  burned  or  that  one  rose 
from  the  dead.  But  water  can  be  made  to  burn  by  certain 
chemicals.  The  more  we  know  about  nature  and  God  the 
more  modest  we  become  in  our  dogmatic  statements  about 
God's  limitations.  Many  are  now  willing  to  admit  that  Jesus 
cured  nervous  troubles  by  psychic  force,  since  we  have  learned 
that  the  mind  has  a  great  influence  on  the  body.  Professor 
Hyslop  even  suggests  that  hospitals  be  set  apart  for  the  curing 


of  certain  forms  of  insanity  by  casting  out  demons.  And  then 
many  cases  of  insanity  are  now  cured  by  pulling  out  diseased 
teeth.  So  we  learn  slowly.  But  demoniacal  possession  is  no 
longer  scouted  by  all  scientists. 

We  must  remember  that  nothing  is  miraculous  to  God  or 
Christ.  With  God  and  Christ  nothing  is  miraculous  because 
all  the  forces  of  knowledge  and  of  power  are  at  their  com 
mand.  If  we  had  all  knowledge  and  all  power,  nothing  would 
be  miraculous  to  us.  Christ  was  not  limited  to  the  powers 
and  laws  known  to  us.  If  God  made  the  universe,  all  the  laws 
of  nature  come  from  him.  He  still  exercises  sway  over  them. 
Paul  says  that  all  things  have  been  created  through  Christ 
and  unto  Christ  and  all  things  hold  together  in  Christ  (Col. 
1 : 16-17).  It  is  a  Christocentric  universe.  Christ  is  Lord  of 

If  modern  science  could  learn  all  the  secrets  of  nature,  and 
by  the  use  of  the  laws  of  God  do  the  things  that  Jesus  did, 
surely  this  would  not  disprove  the  cures  wrought  by  Jesus  or 
his  claim  to  divine  energy  in  doing  them.  "My  Father  work- 
eth  even  until  now,  and  I  work"  (John  5: 17).  With  amaze 
ment  and  with  difficulty  we  unlock  a  few  of  the  mysteries  of 
nature  and  pride  ourselves  on  our  own  attainments.  Jesus 
played  with  the  forces  of  nature  as  a  master  musician.  The 
more  we  learn  of  the  marvels  of  nature,  the  more  we  marvel  at 
Jesus.  There  is  only  one  explanation  of  his  person  and  his 
claim  and  his  prowess.  He  was  the  Son  of  God. 

4.  Five  Cases  of  Healing  in  Luke  Alone. — Of  the  thirty-five 
miracles  described  in  detail  in  the  Gospels  Luke  gives  twenty. 
Of  the  twenty-six  miracles  of  healing  Luke  gives  sixteen  and 
five  are  peculiar  to  him.  For  discussion  on  these,  see  Chapter 
VII,  "  The  Medical  Language  of  Luke."  These  five  excited  the 
special  interest  of  Luke.  They  were  all  chronic  or  incurable 
cases  like  the  old  woman  with  curvature  of  the  spine  (Luke 
13 : 10-17),  the  man  with  the  dropsy  (14 : 1-6),  the  ten  lepers 
(17:11-19),  the  case  of  surgery  (22:51),  and  the  restoration 
to  life  of  the  son  of  the  widow  of  Nain  (7 : 11-17).  They  were 
all  cured  instantaneously  by  Jesus  and  were  genuine  miracles. 
Not  one  of  these  was  a  case  of  nervous  disorder.  These  can 
not  be  explained  by  any  theory  of  modern  psychology.  Luke 
was  a  psychologist,  like  all  true  physicians,  but  he  has  no  hesi 
tation  in  recording  these  cases  that  go  beyond  all  human 


power  now  as  then.  Luke  alone  reports  the  remarkable  case 
of  the  raising  of  the  son  of  the  widow  of  Nain.  The  funeral 
procession  was  stopped  and  the  boy  given  back  to  his  mother. 
It  is  one  of  the  tenderest  touches  in  the  Gospels.  It  manifestly 
touched  the  heart  of  Luke.  "There  is  no  need  to  prove  that 
the  representation  of  our  Lord  given  in  the  Third  Gospel  is 
dominated  by  the  conception  of  Him  as  the  wondrous  Healer 
and  Saviour  of  the  sick,  as,  indeed,  the  Healer  above  all  heal 
ers."  l  But  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  distort  this  fact  into  mean 
ing  that  Luke  attributed  supernatural  powers  to  Christ  in 
order  to  create  that  impression.  We  may,  if  we  will,  say  that 
Luke  was  incompetent  to  distinguish  a  miracle  from  an  ordi 
nary  case  of  healing  or  was  a  poor  judge  of  evidence,  though 
our  opinion  makes  no  change  in  the  facts  of  the  case.  Gilbert 2 
endeavors  to  explain  away  Luke's  belief  in  the  miraculous: 
"We  cannot  doubt  that  Luke,  who  was  little  interested  in  the 
miraculous  element  .  .  .  was  profoundly  moved  by  what  he 
learned  of  the  depth  and  the  universality  of  the  Master's  sym 
pathy."  But  how  does  Gilbert  know  that  Luke  took  little 
interest  "in  the  miraculous  element"?  Percy  Gardner  says 
that  Luke  loved  a  good  miracle  so  much  that  he  would  lug  it 
in  to  brighten  his  narrative.  It  is  hard  to  satisfy  critics  of 
Luke.  Luke  gives  no  evidence  of  being  an  excitable  physician 
or  a  poor  diagnostician.  He  writes  calm  and  serious  history 
after  prolonged  and  thorough  research.  We  are  bound  to  give 
due  weight  to  what  he  records  as  true,  whether  we  accept  it  or 
not.  It  is  easier  to  ask  questions  than  to  answer  them.  Who 
to-day  can  tell  what  is  the  origin  of  life,  or  the  true  nature  of 
life,  or  what  death  is  and  means? 

5.  Miracles  of  Christ  Over  Nature. — Luke  did  not  hesitate  to 
record  evidences  of  the  power  of  Christ  over  animate  and 
inanimate  nature  outside  of  man.  It  is  here  that  some  mod 
ern  scientists  take  a  more  positive  stand  against  miracles. 
Possible  explanations  have  been  offered  for  some  of  the  mira 
cles  of  healing,  so  that  men  of  science  are  less  sceptical  about 
the  rest.  But  it  must  never  be  overlooked  that  the  fact  of 
the  miracles  of  Jesus  by  no  means  depends  upon  our  being 
able  to  offer  intelligible  theories  about  them.  They  may  thus 
be  rendered  easier  for  some  men  to  believe,  but  the  miracles 
of  Jesus  are  grounded  on  the  central  fact  of  God's  mastery 

1  Harnack,  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  195.  *  Jesus,  pp,  46  f. 


over  nature.  Jesus  presents  God  as  personal,  ana  not  as  an 
abstract  philosophical  conception  or  as  misty  pantheism.  God 
is  like  Jesus  as  Jesus  is  like  God.  Personal  will  rules  the  uni 
verse,  the  Will  of  God  expressed  in  his  laws,  but  superior  to 
his  laws,  the  Source  of  all  Energy  and  Life.  This  is  the  view 
of  Jesus  and  he  acts  upon  it.  Luke  accepts  it  and  records 
proofs  of  Christ's  power  and  claims.  It  is  not  unscientific 
that  a  real  God  should  be  at  the  heart  of  the  universe.  Mod 
ern  scientists  hesitate  to  say  that  God  cannot  or  does  not 
guide  the  universe  by  his  Will.  Wonderful  powers  have  been 
discovered  in  certain  forms  of  matter,  like  radium.  We  must 
either  be  materialists  or  spiritualists  (in  the  proper  use  of  this 
word).  Either  matter  is  eternal  and  self-sufficient  and  the 
source  of  life  and  energy,  or  God  is  eternal  and  before  matter 
and  the  creator  of  matter  and  the  guide  of  the  universe.  No 
one  to-day  conceives  of  a  mechanical  God  who  started  the 
universe  and  then  took  his  hand  off  of  the  machine.  God  is 
working  to-day  as  much  as  ever.  He  works  by  his  laws,  by 
the  laws  of  his  own  nature,  some  of  which  we  have  discovered. 
But  he  works  on,  whether  we  are  ignorant  or  whether  we  know. 
Nothing  is  miraculous  to  God.  His  Will  is  the  supreme  law 
of  the  universe.  It  is  thus  an  ordered  world  of  law,  but  not  a 
merciless  machine  that,  like  a  juggernaut,  overrides  all.  Pre 
sumption  pays  the  price  in  such  a  universe.  But  we  are  not 
hopeless  and  helpless  before  the  perils  of  nature  red  in  tooth 
and  claw.  Law  at  bottom  is  love  and  God  is  love.  God  does 
not  act  by  whims  and  caprice,  but  he  is  our  Father. 

So  Jesus  lets  the  demons  rush  into  the  swine  to  save  the  man 
(Luke  8 :  33  f.).  "He  gave  them  leave,"  Luke  says,  following 
Mark's  record  (5: 13).  Whatever  our  explanation  of  the  rea 
son  that  prompted  Jesus,  Luke  puts  down  what  Mark  has. 
The  result  proves  that  the  people  cared  more  for  the  hogs 
than  they  did  for  the  poor  demoniac,  for  they  begged  Jesus 
to  leave  their  shores  (Luke  8:37).  It  mattered  little  that 
the  man  was  now  clothed  and  in  his  right  mind  (8 :  35).  This 
miracle  is  usually  counted  as  one  and  the  same  with  that  of 
the  Gerasene  Demoniac.  Huxley  had  his  fun  with  Gladstone 
over  "the  Gadarene  Pig  Affair,"  but  all  the  same  hogs  are  sub 
ject  to  mass  attacks  like  sheep  and  like  mobs  of  men.  Hux 
ley's  point  about  Gerasa  and  Gadara  vanishes,  for  we  know 
that  the  village  of  Khersa  (Gerasa)  by  the  lake  is  meant  (not 


Gerasa  thirty  miles  away),  the  village  tributary  to  Gadara 
some  six  miles  distant. 

Luke  alone  gives  the  draft  of  fishes  (5:1-11).  Some 
critics  find  here  another  version  of  the  draft  of  fishes  in 
John  21 : 1-14,  but  without  adequate  justification.  Peter  plays 
a  leading  part  both  times,  it  is  true,  but  that  is  not  strange. 
One  of  the  strangest  of  all  theories  is  that  of  Schmiedel,  who 
thinks  that  Luke  is  giving  an  allegory  of  Paul's  conflict  with 
the  Judaizers  about  the  Gentiles.1  No  wonder  Carpenter2 
calls  this  interpretation  "an  interesting  example  of  the  over- 
subtlety  with  which  S.  Luke  can  be  treated."  And  that  is 
termed  scientific  and  historical  exegesis!  The  allegorizing  is 
that  of  Schmiedel,  not  of  Luke.  Luke  (8 :  22-25)  reports  the 
stilling  of  the  storm,  following  Mark's  Gospel  (4 : 35-41  = 
Matt.  8 :  23-27).  The  mastery  of  Christ  over  wind  and  wave 
is  clearly  shown  to  the  marvel  of  the  disciples,  who  gain  a 
fresh  revelation  of  the  person  and  power  of  Jesus. 

The  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  is  given  in  all  the  four 
Gospels,  the  only  one  of  the  miracles  wrought  by  Jesus  that 
is  thus  attested.  Huxley  does  not  ridicule  this  witness,  which 
is  on  a  par  with  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  in  its  full  testi 
mony.  And  yet  Luke  records  this  amazing  incident  with 
much  detail  (9 : 10-17).  Mark's  Gospel  here  preserves  the 
vivid  details  of  Peter's  description,  the  garden-beds  and  the 
green  grass  (Mark  6 : 39  f.),  but  Luke  follows  Mark  with  the 
orderly  arrangement  of  the  crowd  and  the  manifest  miracu 
lous  multiplication  of  the  loaves  and  the  fishes  in  the  presence 
of  all  the  multitude.  Jesus  stood  on  the  hillside  and  blessed 
and  broke  the  loaves  as  the  disciples  rapidly  bore  and  dis 
tributed  the  baskets.  This  miracle  is  a  stumbling-block  to  all 
who  believe  in  an  absentee  God  or  in  no  God.  But  we  see 
here  Jesus  as  Lord  of  nature  and  of  man,  with  infinite  pity 
and  boundless  power.  He  hastened  or  skipped  the  usual 
processes  of  nature.  The  miracle  created  a  crisis  in  the  min 
istry  of  Jesus  and  led  to  his  withdrawal  from  Galilee,  because 
of  popular  excitement  and  misunderstanding.  It  is  hard  to 
think  that  the  great  crowds  were  fed  by  a  trick  and  so  pur 
posely  misled  by  Jesus.  The  picture  of  Jesus  on  the  eastern 
slope  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee  near  Bethsaida  Julias  challenged 

*Encyd.  Bibl,  pp.  4573-76  (art.  "Simon  Peter"). 
2  Op.  cit.,  p.  84. 


the  interest  of  Luke  as  it  compels  men  to-day  to  pause.  The 
crowd  wanted  to  take  him  by  force  to  Jerusalem  and  crown 
him  political  king,  as  the  panacea  for  earthly  ills.  If  we  crown 
him  king  of  our  lives  we  shall  find  Jesus  to  be  what  Luke  took 
him  to  be,  the  Great  Physician  for  soul  and  body,  the  Saviour 
from  sin  and  sickness,  the  Lord  of  all  nature,  the  Giver  of  all 
grace  and  good,  the  Lord  of  life  and  of  death. 



"And  his  disciples  asked  him  what  this  parable  might  be" 
(Luke  8:9). 

It  is  not  straining  after  effect  to  call  Luke  a  man  of  literary 
tastes  and  habits.1  There  is  a  modern  parallel  to  Luke  in 
Doctor  W.  T.  Grenfell,  the  Oxford  University  man  who  has 
given  himself  to  work  in  Labrador  as  medical  missionary, 
and  who  writes  of  life  in  Labrador  with  exquisite  charm 
and  grace.  Luke  knew  the  great  literature  of  his  time,  one 
can  well  believe,  and  he  had,  besides,  the  sure  touch  of  genius 
in  the  expression  of  his  ideas.  Sir  W.  Robertson  Nicoll  says 
that  Mark  Rutherford  always  found  the  right  word  in  the 
right  place.  Luke  was  not  a  professional  stylist.  He  did  not 
strive  after  artificial  effects,  but  he  had  full  knowledge  and 
fine  discrimination. 

1.  The  Beauty  of  Christ's  Parables. — They  made  a  powerful 
appeal  to  Luke.  "  It  is  one  of  the  many  signs  of  inferiority  in 
the  apocryphal  gospels  that  they  contain  no  parables.  While 
they  degrade  miracles  into  mere  arbitrary  and  unspiritual  acts 
of  power,  they  omit  all  that  teaches  of  the  deep  relations  be 
tween  the  seen  and  the  unseen." 2  But,  just  as  Luke  was  not 
credulous  in  reporting  miracles,  so  he  had  the  insight  to  see 
the  worth  of  the  parables  of  Jesus.  The  true  biographer 
reveals  himself  in  the  choice  that  he  makes  of  the  material  in 
his  hands  and  in  the  skill  with  which  he  presents  it  to  create 
the  picture. 

There  is  a  literary  charm  in  Luke's  report  of  Christ's  para 
bles  that  marks  his  Gospel  apart  from  the  others.  But  the 
beauty  of  these  parables  is  not  due  to  the  genius  of  Luke. 
There  is  a  beauty  in  the  Bible  facts  as  well  as  in  the  Bible 
story.3  Luke  is  faithful  to  Christ's  words,  and  yet  he  gives  a 

1McLachlan  (St.  Luke)  has  his  first  chapter  on  "Luke  the  Man  of 
Letters."  "He  is  a  man  of  literary  attainment  and  scientific  culture" 
(p.  8). 

2Plummer,  Hastings's  D.  B.  ("Parable  in  the  N.  T."). 

8  Cf .  Stalker,  The  Beauty  of  the  Bibk. 



turn  here  and  there  in  the  setting  of  the  story  that  one  may 
call  literary  finish  if  he  will. 

The  literary  perfection  of  the  parables  belongs  to  Jesus  and 
appears  in  the  parables  in  all  the  Gospels.  Sanday  calls  the 
parables  of  Jesus  the  finest  literary  art  of  the  world,  combining 
simplicity,  profundity,  elemental  emotion  and  spiritual  inten 
sity.  They  were  spoken  chiefly  in  the  Aramaic,  and  yet  their 
originality  is  attested  in  the  Greek  translation  and  even  in  the 
English  by  their  freshness,  beauty  and  moral  earnestness. 
They  possessed  a  matchless  charm  for  the  people  who  heard 
them  for  the  first  time  as  they  fell  from  the  lips  of  the  Master 
Story-teller  of  the  ages.  For  sheer  witchery  of  words  and 
grip  upon  the  mind  and  heart,  the  short  stories  of  Jesus  stand 
alone.  Edgar  Allan  Poe,  Hawthorne,  Bret  Harte,  O.  Henry 
and  all  the  rest  are  on  a  lower  plane. 

And  yet  Jesus  did  not  invent  parables.  They  are  common 
in  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  Talmud.  Some  of  the  Jew 
ish  rabbis  were  very  fond  of  using  them.  Parables  are  com 
mon  enough  to-day.  But  Jesus  is  the  master  in  the  use  of 
them.  He  made  the  parable  preach  his  gospel — "a  picture- 
gospel"  (Plummer).  He  knew  "the  book  of  nature  and  of 
human  nature"  and  threw  a  flash-light  on  both  by  means  of 
the  parable.  The  people  saw  the  sins  and  frailties  of  the 
Pharisees  in  the  parables  of  Jesus,  and  then  their  own  photo 
graphs  stamped  before  their  very  eyes.  The  parables  of  Jesus 
were  so  vivid  that  they  were  like  moving  pictures  of  the  soul. 
Augustine  says  that  Christ's  miracles  are  acted  parables  and 
his  parables  are  miracles  of  beauty  and  instruction.  John 
Foster  says  that  the  miracles  of  Jesus  were  like  ringing  the 
great  bell  of  the  universe  for  the  people  to  come  and  listen. 
The  parables  caught  their  attention  and  drove  the  lesson 
home.  Christ  drew  his  parables  from  the  life  of  the  people. 
They  are  transcripts  from  the  life  of  the  time  and  so  of  all 
time.  Those  in  Luke  are  the  most  wonderful  and  beautiful 
of  all.  If  Luke  loved  a  good  miracle,  he  was  equally  fascinated 
by  the  parables  of  Jesus. 

2.  Christ's  Reasons  for  Using  Parables. — Scholars  have 
sought  to  find  one  reason  that  covers  all  the  ground.  This  is 
not  possible,  for  Jesus  himself  gives  two  reasons  for  the  use  of 
so  many  parables  after  the  blasphemous  accusation  by  the 
Pharisees,  when  the  atmosphere  was  electric  with  hostility. 


Jesus  had  frequently  employed  parabolic  sayings  and  brief 
isolated  parables  before  this  "Busy  Day."  But  on  this  occa 
sion  "with  many  such  parables  spake  he  the  word  unto  them, 
as  they  were  able  to  hear  it:  and  without  a  parable  spake  he 
not  unto  them:  but  privately  to  his  disciples  he  expounded  all 
things"  (Mark  4 :  33  f.).  There  are  nine  given  by  the  Synop 
tic  Gospels  and  there  were  probably  more.  The  very  first 
one,  the  parable  of  the  sower,  puzzled  the  disciples  so  that 
they  asked  Jesus  "what  this  parable  might  be"  (Luke  8:9). 
Then  Jesus  explained  why  he  spoke  on  this  occasion  in  parables. 
It  was  a  condemnation  to  the  enemies  of  Christ  "  that 1  seeing 
they  may  not  see,  and  hearing  they  may  not  understand" 
(Luke  8 : 10).  And  yet  the  same  parable  is  meant  to  be  a 
revelation  to  the  disciples:  "Unto  you  it  is  given  to  know  the 
mysteries  of  the  Kingdom  of  God"  (Luke  8 : 10  =  Mark  4:11 
=  Matt.  13: 11).  One  thinks  of  the  "mystery-religions"  and 
their  initiations  and  secrets,  like  modern  Masons  and  other 
secret  orders.  Mark  reports  Jesus  as  saying:  "But  unto  them 
that  are  without,  all  things  are  done  in  parables."  The  great 
est  secret  order  of  the  world  is  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Jesus 
opens  the  mysteries  of  grace  with  no  incantations  and  mock 
ing  mummeries,  but  with  the  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
that  floods  the  soul  and  the  life  with  light.  So  the  parables  of 
Jesus  were  a  pillar  of  cloud  and  darkness  to  the  Pharisees,  but 
of  fire  and  light  to  the  disciples  when  their  eyes  were  opened 
to  see.  They  were  a  spiritual  smoke-screen  to  shut  off  those 
who  were  blaspheming  Jesus.  Thus  Jesus  keeps  from  casting 
pearls  before  swine  (Matt.  7 : 6)  and  is  able  to  go  on  with  his 
teaching  in  an  uncongenial  atmosphere.  Paul  later  noted 
that  the  gospel  message  was  a  savor  of  life  unto  life  or  of  death 
unto  death  (II  Cor.  2  : 17  if.)-  It  is  literally  true  that  preach 
ing  hardens  the  heart,  the  eye,  the  ear,  the  mind,  or  stirs  one 
to  a  richer  life  with  God.  Jesus  himself  was  set  for  the  falling 
and  the  rising  of  many  in  Israel,  as  old  Simeon  saw  (Luke  2 :  34). 
But  there  are  other  reasons  why  Jesus  used  parables  in  his 
teaching.  They  served  to  put  truth  in  crisp  form  that  was 
easily  remembered  and  that  would  be  afterward  understood. 
The  story  would  stick  and  would  hold  the  lesson  that  it  car 
ried.  The  Apostles  were  not  so  well  educated  as  the  Pharisees. 

1  Both  Mark  (4  : 12)  and  Luke  here  have  Tva,  which  may  express  pur 
pose  or  result  (in  the  Koine").     Matthew  (13  : 13)  has  8-ci  (because). 


They  had  less  intellectual  training  and  dialectical  acumen,  but 
they  could  catch  the  stories  of  Jesus,  for  they  had  less  preju 
dice  and  fewer  predilections.  They  did  see  the  point  of  the 
parables  after  the  private  explanation  by  Jesus  (Matt.  13  :  51). 

And  then  there  is  power  in  a  good  story  to  win  attention 
and  to  hold  it  when  interest  begins  to  flag.  Jesus  had  often 
to  say  "Listen,"  as  the  minds  of  his  hearers  began  to  wander 
or  they  were  disconcerted.  "If  any  man  has  ears  to  hear,  let 
him  hear"  (Mark  4  :  23).  "Take  heed  therefore  how  ye  hear" 
(Luke  8  :  18),  where  Mark  (4  :  24)  has  "what  ye  hear." 

Once  more  the  parables  of  Jesus  stimulated  inquiry  on  the 
part  of  the  disciples.  On  this  very  occasion  the  disciples 
twice  asked  him  to  explain  his  parables,  that  of  the  sower 
(Luke  8:9  =  Mark  4  :  10  =  Matt.  13  :  10)  and  that  of  the 
tares  (Matt.  13  :  36). 

Jesus  thus  spoke  in  parables  to  the  multitudes  (Matt.  13  :  34) 
what  he  could  not  so  well  have  said  to  a  popular  assembly 
already  excited  by  the  charges  of  the  Pharisees.  But  the  new 
style  of  teaching  became  a  marked  characteristic  of  the  min 
istry  of  Jesus. 

3.  The  Meaning  of  Parables.  —  The  etymology  of  the  word  is 
simple  enough.  The  Greek  word1  means  to  place  beside  for 
purpose  of  comparison.  The  parable2  is  thus  a  sort  of  measur 
ing-rod  for  spiritual  and  moral  truth.  Just  as  the  yardstick 
measures  off  a  yard  of  silk,  so  the  parable  takes  a  concrete 
example  from  life  to  illustrate  the  truth  in  mind.  The  word 
illustration  is  a  Latin  word  and  means  to  throw  light  upon  a 
subject.  This  is  the  purpose,  likewise,  of  parable.  The  little 
girl  was  not  far  wrong  when  she  said  that  a  parable  was  an 
earthly  story  with  a  heavenly  meaning.  The  Hebrew  word 
for  parable  (mashal)  was  used  for  a  discourse  that  implied 
comparison.  But  the  Hebrew  term  had  a  wide  application. 
It  might  be  similitude,  allegory,  proverb,  paradox,  or  even 
riddle.  So  no  one  type  covers  all  the  uses  of  parable  in  the 
New  Testament. 

The  word  is  used  in  various  ways  in  the  Gospels.  We  have 
a  proverb  called  parable  by  Jesus  in  Luke  4  :  23  :  "  Physician, 
heal  thyself."  There  is  analogy  in  such  a  proverb  which  the 

fj  from 

2  John  employs  -jcapot^fa,  a  wayside  saying,  for  shorter  sayings  of  an 
obscure  nature  (John  16  :  25,  29)  and  for  longer  narratives  (John  10  :  6). 


hearer  must  catch.  So  Luke  terms  Christ's  proverb  about 
the  blind  leading  the  blind  a  parable  (Luke  6:39).  Hence 
we  can  apply  the  word  parable  to  the  proverb  of  the  reed 
shaken  with  the  wind  (Luke  7 : 24)  and  the  green  tree  and  the 
dry  (23 : 31).  See  also  the  proverb  of  the  whole  and  the  sick 
(Luke  5 :  31  f.)  and  of  the  bridegroom  (5 :  34).  Jesus  did  not 
always  call  his  parables  by  the  word  nor  do  the  Gospels.  See 
Luke  16 : 13  about  serving  two  masters.  Sometimes  the 
similitude  is  drawn  by  the  word  "like"  or  "likened,"  as  in  the 
brief  parable  of  the  leaven  (Luke  13 :  20  f.).  The  parable  of 
the  fig-tree  (Luke  21 : 29-33)  is  also  a  good  example  of  formal 
comparison.  See  also  the  foolish  rich  man  in  Luke  12 : 16-21, 
where  Jesus  draws  the  lesson  clearly. 

A  parable  may  be  a  paradox.  W.  J.  Moulton1  notes  three 
kinds  of  paradox  in  Christ's  parabolic  teaching.  One  sort- 
shocks  the  hearer  by  its  violent  contrast,  as  when  Jesus  said 
that  it  is  easier  for  a  camel  to -enter  in  through  a  needle's  eye 
than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God  (Luke 
18:25).  Such  a  parable  is  meant  to  provoke  reflection,  as 
when  Jesus  spoke  of  hating  one's  father  and  mother  (Luke 
14:26).  The  paradox  may  become  clearer  in  time,  as,  for 
instance,  Christ's  denunciation  of  the  Pharisees  as  hypocrites 
(Luke  6:42)  with  "beams"  or  long  sticks  of  wood  in  their 
eyes  trying  to  get  a  little  mote  out  of  the  other  people's  eyes. 
But  the  third  kind  of  parabolic  paradox  retains  its  inherent 
difficulty  with  the  lapse  of  time,  as  in  conquering  by  the  cross 
and  in  saving  one's  life  by  losing  it  (Luke  9:23f.;  14:27). 
So  as  to  making  friends  by  the  mammon  of  unrighteousness 
(16 : 9). 

The  longer  parables  have  the  narrative  form,  like  the  sower 
(Luke  8:4-15),  the  prodigal  son  (15:11-32).  In  these  the 
formal  comparison  is  not  drawn,  though  it  is  plainly  implied. 
The  great  bulk  of  the  longer  parables  are  of  this  nature. 

The  parable  need  not  be  fact,  but  it  must  be  truth.  The 
fable  is  a  caricature  of  animal  life,  where  the  animals  in  a 
grotesque  way  act  contrary  to  nature.  The  parable  is  always 
in  harmony  with  nature,  whether  the  lily  of  the  field,  the  spar 
row  that  falls,  the  lost  sheep  in  the  mountains,  the  lost  coin, 
or  the  lost  boy.  It  is  not  possible  to  tell  whether  or  when 
Christ's  parables  are  purely  imaginative  or  have  a  basis  of 
1  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels, 


concrete  fact  in  specific  instances.  The  parable  of  the  pounds 
(Luke  19 : 11-27)  seems  to  have  as  its  background  the  deposi 
tion  of  Archelaus  in  A.  D.  6,  when  Jesus  was  a  boy  about 
twelve  years  old.  But  most  of  Christ's  parables  are  drawn 
from  nature  or  from  human  life  about  him.  They  are  true  to 
form,  and  picture  in  lasting  colors  the  life  of  men  then  and 

The  allegory  is  a  variety  of  parable,  but  scholars  do  not 
agree  in  their  use  of  the  term  allegory.  Plummer1  puts  the 
matter  clearly:  "In  an  allegory  figure  and  fact,  or,  rather, 
figure  and  interpretation,  are  not  mixed,  but  are  parallel,  and 
move  simultaneously,  as  in  the  allegory  of  the  True  Vine  or 
of  the  Good  Shepherd."  And  Plummer  might  have  added 
the  allegory  of  the  sower  and  of  the  prodigal  son.  The  allegory 
is  a  narrative  parable  that  is  self-explanatory.  It  means 
speaking  something  else.2  The  point  of  the  story  is  plain  as 
it  proceeds  for  those  who  have  eyes  to  see,  though  the  disciples 
did  not  understand  the  story  of  the  sower  till  Jesus  explained 
it.  Bunyan's  Pilgrim's  Progress  is  the  great  modern  allegory. 
Weinel3  even  says  that  Jesus  never  spoke  in  allegory  and 
Julicher4  admits  that  the  Gospels  report  him  as  doing  so,  but 
misrepresent  him  in  the  matter.  Jesus  did  not,  it  is  true, 
employ  the  allegorical  method  of  interpretation  in  the  whimsi 
cal  manner  of  Philo  with  his  fantastic  "spiritualizing"  that 
had  such  a  disastrous  influence  on  the  Alexandrian  theology 
of  Origen  and  Clement  of  Alexandria.  All  of  the  parables  of 
Jesus  have  a  point  and  he  uses  the  parable  to  point  the  moral 
in  his  teaching.  The  allegory  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus  follows 
the  line  of  the  parable  in  being  true  to  nature.  The  deeper 
spiritual  truth  that  Jesus  expounds  lies  on  the  surface  for 
those  with  spiritual  insight.  W.  J.  Moulton5  regards  the  alle 
gory  with  Christ  as  imperfectly  developed,  because  he  does 
not  explain  all  the  details  of  the  story.  Compare  the  sower 
(Luke  8  :  5-15)  and  the  wicked  husbandman  (Luke  20 :  9-19). 
But  in  all  of  Christ's  parables  he  holds  to  the  main  point  with 
less  concern  for  the  setting  and  the  details. 

1  Hastings's  Diet,  of  the  Bible  (art.  "Parable  in  N.  T."). 

2  d),XT)Yop(a.     The  substantive  does  not  occur  in  the  N.  T.,  but  Paul 
has  the  participle  in  Gal.  4  .  24. 

3  Die  Gleichnisse  Jesu,  p.  30.  4  Die  Gleichnisreden  Jesu,  I,  pp.  61  f. 
6  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels  (art.  "Parable"). 


4.  The  Interpretation  of  Parables. — The  wildest  speculation 
has  appeared  in  the  interpretation  of  the  parables  of  Jesus. 
We  must  be  sure  that  we  understand  the  language  that  Jesus 
used,  as,  for  instance,  "that,  when  it  shall  fail,  they  may 
receive  you  into  the  eternal  tabernacles"  (Luke  16:9).  The 
word  "receive"  simply  means  a  welcome  on  the  part  of  those 
benefited  by  the  use  of  one's  money,  not  the  purchase  of  sal 
vation  by  means  of  one's  money. 

The  context  must  be  noted  to  see  the  precise  light  in  which 
the  story  appears.  All  three  stories  in  Luke  15  are  justifica 
tions  by  Jesus  of  his  association  with  publicans  and  sinners 
against  the  sneer  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  scribes  in  verses 
1  and  2.  The  lost  sheep,  the  lost  coin,  the  lost  son  are  pic 
tures  of  the  lost  (publicans  and  sinners)  whom  Jesus  came  to 
save.  The  elder  brother  is  a  picture  of  the  carping  Pharisee 
who  provoked  the  stories.  Again  in  chapter  16  we  have  the 
parables  about  the  wise  and  the  unwise  use  of  money,  and 
Luke  adds  (16 : 14)  that  "  the  Pharisees,  who  were  lovers  of 
money,  heard  all  these  things;  and  they  scoffed  at  him." 

Each  parable  of  Jesus  teaches  a  great  truth,  and  this  is  the 
first  thing  to  find  and  sometimes  the  only  thing  that  we  need 
learn  as  to  the  teaching.  Certainly  in  the  case  of  the  unjust 
steward  (Luke  16 : 1-13)  this  is  true,  and  nothing  can  be  made 
of  the  fact  of  the  steward's  rascality.  The  same  thing  is  true 
of  the  discovery  of  the  hid  treasure  and  of  the  story  of  the 
Lord's  coming  like  a  thief  in  the  night. 

And  yet  Jesus  did  sometimes  make  use  of  the  minor  details 
as  in  some  of  those  in  the  tares  and  practically  all  in  the  sower. 
The  early  commentators  went  to  such  excesses  that  Chrysos- 
tom  (Horn,  on  Matt.,  64 : 3)  says  that  the  details  should  be 
ignored  altogether  in  the  interpretation  of  the  parable. 
Broadus  (Comm.  on  Matt.,  Chap.  XIII)  thinks  that  we  are  safe 
where  we  have  the  guidance  of  Christ,  but  that  elsewhere 
we  should  err  on  the  side  of  restraint  rather  than  license. 
Trench1  has  good  words  in  his  third  chapter.  Augustine  says 
that  the  parable  is  not  to  be  used  as  the  basis  for  argument 
unless  one  has  a  categorical  teaching  elsewhere.  The  three 
loaves  in  Luke  11:5  have  been  made  to  teach  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  and  the  two  shillings  in  the  parable  of  the  good 
Samaritan  (10 :  35)  to  mean  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper ! 
1  Notes  on  the  Parables. 


In  particular,  it  should  be  said  that  one  must  be  careful 
about  building  schemes  of  theology  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
kingdom  parables,  especially  as  to  the  number  seven  in  Matt. 
13  or  three  in  Luke  14  and  in  15.  Luke's  kingdom  parables 
deal  more  with  the  individual  experience  rather  than  with  the 
gradual  growth  of  the  kingdom  itself.  There  is  an  apocalyp 
tic  or  eschatological  element  in  some  of  the  parables  in  Luke 
as  in  Mark  and  Matthew,  but  the  parable  of  the  pounds 
(Luke  19 : 11-27)  was  spoken  expressly  to  discourage  the  wild 
excitement  of  the  multitude  who  "  supposed  that  the  kingdom 
of  God  was  immediately  to  appear"  (19:11).  And  Luke's 
report  of  the  great  eschatological  discourse  on  the  Mount  of 
Olives  is  quite  brief  (21 : 5-36).  He  uses  the  parable  of  the 
fig-tree  to  warn  the  disciples  about  the  coming  culmination  of 
the  kingdom  (29-33).  But,  on  the  whole,  the  parables  of 
Jesus  in  Luke  are  a  stern  rebuke  to  the  wild  eschatologists  who 
fail  to  see  the  spiritual  and  ethical  side  of  Christ's  teaching. 
The  parables  show  the  gradual  expansion  of  the  work  of  the 
kingdom,  and  Luke  has  the  pregnant  saying  of  Christ  to  the 
Pharisees  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  within1  men,  not  an 
external  and  political  organization  as  the  Pharisees  expected 
(17:20f.).  "The  truth  about  Jesus  is  too  great  to  be  seen 
from  any  single  standpoint.  No  single  category  is  able  to 
contain  him.  The  truth  is  more  comprehensive  than  is  sup 
posed  by  either  the  Mystery  school  or  the  thoroughgoing 
Eschatologists."2  Jesus  "transmuted  eschatology"  to  serve 
his  purpose,  but  he  was  not  a  dupe  of  eschatological  schemes 
and  programmes.  Christ  is  glorified  in  the  Transfiguration, 
the  Resurrection,  the  Ascension.  Pentecost  and  the  Destruc 
tion  of  Jerusalem  were  forecasts  of  the  end  of  the  world  and 
the  coming  of  Christ  in  person  to  judge  the  world. 

5.  Luke's  Special  Contribution  to  Our  Knowledge  of  the  Para 
bles  of  Jesus. — Scholars  differ  greatly  in  counting  Christ's  para 
bles.  Bruce3  gives  thirty-three  and  eight  "parable-germs." 
Koetsweld  counts  seventy-nine.  I  have  listed  some  fifty  of 
them  in  Broadus's  Harmony  of  the  Gospels  (pp.  270  f.).  The 
speech  of  Christ  was  full  of  metaphor  and  similitude  like  the 
lilies  of  the  field  and  the  birds  of  the  air.  Of  the  thirty-five  of 
some  length  that  are  usually  discussed  in  the  books  on  the 

1  4vT6<;.  2  Carpenter,  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  p.  153. 

3  The  Parabolic  Teaching  of  Christ,  pp.  xi  f . 


parables  of  Jesus,  Luke  has  twenty-three  and  eighteen  occur 
in  his  Gospel  alone.  Three  are  also  in  Matthew  and  Mark 
(the  sower,  the  mustard-seed,  the  wicked  husbandman)  and 
two  are  in  Matthew  (the  leaven,  the  lost  sheep). 

The  eighteen  that  occur  in  Luke  alone  are  beautiful  and 
give  a  distinct  grace  and  glory  to  his  Gospel.  They  are  the 
two  debtors  (Luke  7 :  40-43),  the  good  Samaritan  (10 :  30-37), 
the  friend  at  midnight  (11 :  5-8),  the  rich  fool  (12 : 16-21),  the 
waiting  servants  (12  :  35-48),  the  barren  fig-tree  (13  :  6-9),  the 
chief  seats  at  feasts  (14:7-11),  the  great  supper  (14: 15-24), 
the  rash  builder  (14 : 28-30),  the  rash  king  (14 : 31-33),  the 
lost  coin  (15:8-10),  the  lost  son  (15: 11-32),  the  unrighteous 
steward  (16  : 1-12),  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  (16 : 19-31),  the 
unprofitable  servants  (17:7-10),  the  unrighteous  judge 
(18  : 1-8),  the  Pharisee  and  the  publican  (18 :  9-14),  the  pounds 
(19: 11-27).  We  could  ill  afford  to  give  up  these  wonderful 

Luke,  like  Matthew  (13,  21,  24  and  25),  is  fond  of  bunching 
the  parables,  as  in  5:36-39;  13:18-21;  14:28-32;  chapters 
15,  16,  18.  It  looks  as  if  Jesus  at  times  piled  parable  upon 
parable  in  his  teaching,  to  drive  the  point  home,  as  in  Luke  15 
(three)  and  in  Matt.  21  and  22  (three).  Sometimes  there 
are  pairs  of  parables  in  Luke,  as  in  Matthew.  Plummer1  notes 
how  the  effect  of  Christ's  parables  is  intensified  by  contrasts, 
as  in  the  heartless  clergy  and  the  charitable  Samaritan  (Luke 
10 : 30),  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  (16 : 19),  the  Pharisee  and 
the  publican  (18 :  9). 

There  is  a  trace  of  Luke's  own  style  in  some  of  the  parables 
which  he  may  have  translated  from  the  Aramaic  into  the 
Greek,2  but  in  the  main  we  may  feel  sure  that  Luke  has  pre 
served  the  story  with  the  flavor  that  Jesus  gave  it.  Stanton3 
thinks  that  the  good  Samaritan,  in  particular,  has  Lukan 

As  a  rule  parables  are  drawn  from  a  different  realm  to  illus 
trate  one's  point.  But  Luke  gives  some  that  come  from  the 
same  sphere  by  way  of  example,  as  the  good  Samaritan,  the 
foolish  rich  man,  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus,  the  Pharisee  and 
the  publican,  the  friend  at  midnight,  the  unjust  judge.  These 

1  Hastings's  B.  D. 

2  Carpenter,  op.  cit.,  p.  195. 

3  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents,  II,  p.  300. 


are  parables  of  the  personal  touch.  The  parallel  consists  in 
the  application  of  the  story  to  the  life  of  the  hearer.  Luke  is 
fond  of  the  personal  touch  in  Christ's  stories.  "The  Lukan 
parables  are  not  formal  expositions  of  the  nature  of  the  king 
dom,  they  are  appeals  ad  hominem.  And  they  are  drawn,  for 
the  most  part,  not  from  the  processes  of  nature,  but  from  the 
facts  of  human  life  and  character." l 

Glover2  thinks  that  Jesus  was  fond  of  telling  parables  of  his 
home  life  in  Nazareth.  He  watched  his  own  home  life.  "It 
was  Mary,  we  may  believe,  who  put  the  leaven  in  the  three 
measures  of  meal  .  .  .  and  Jesus  sat  by  and  watched  it.  In 
after  years  the  sight  came  back  to  Him.  He  remembered  the 
big  basin,  the  heaving,  panting  mass  in  it,  the  bubbles  strug 
gling  out,  swelling  and  breaking,  and  the  level  rising  and  fall 
ing.  It  came  to  Him  as  a  picture  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven 
at  work  in  the  individual  man  and  in  the  community." 3 

It  matters  little  how  we  classify  the  parables  of  Jesus.  That 
is  all  subjective  and  more  or  less  artificial.  We  shall  get  bet 
ter  results  by  studying  the  parables  as  they  come  in  their  own 
context  than  by  tearing  them  out  by  the  roots  and  making 
them  live  in  our  theological  pots  and  pans.  They  are  alive 
and  will  bleed  if  mistreated.  They  throb  with  life  as  Luke 
has  preserved  them  in  his  Gospel. 

It  is  doubtless  true  that  Luke's  interest  in  the  parables  of 
Jesus  was  largely  that  of  a  literary  man  who  was  charmed  by 
these  matchless  stories  of  the  new  life  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 
But  he  had  also  the  interest  of  a  sober  theologian4  to  combat 
the  wild  eschatological  views  of  the  time.  Jesus  at  times  used 
the  apocalyptic  method  and  the  eschatological  motive,  but  it 
was  always  with  restraint  and  reserve.  The  teaching  of  Jesus 
concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  in  Luke's  report  of  the  para 
bles  discountenances  all  millennial  programmes  and  set  times 
for  the  second  coming  of  Christ.  The  keynote  of  the  parables 
of  Jesus  in  Luke's  Gospel  is  personal  salvation  and  growth  of 
Christian  character.  The  larger  aspect  of  the  kingdom  in  its 
social  and  world  relations  is  present,  but  it  is  grounded  in  the 
new  life  of  the  individual  in  Christ.  The  social  redemption  of 

1  Carpenter,  op.  cit.,  p.  112. 

2  The  Jesus  of  History,  p.  30. 

3  Glover,  The  Meaning  and  Purpose  of  a  Christian  Society,  p.  18. 
4McLachlan  (St.  Luke)  has  a  chapter  on  "  Luke  the  Theologian." 


the  race  is  the  goal  and  Luke  makes  that  clear.  He  has  a 
world  outlook  and  a  world  sympathy,  and  Jesus  stands  forth 
as  the  teacher  for  all  the  world  and  for  all  time  with  a  pro 
gramme  for  world  reconstruction. 


"Thou  art  my  beloved  Son;  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased"  (Luke  3  :  22) 

Luke  had  to  face  the  problem  of  the  person  of  Christ  when 
he  decided  to  write  his  Gospel.  The  picture  of  Jesus  Christ 
was  already  drawn  in  the  Logia  of  Matthew  and  in  Mark's 
Gospel,  as  we  know.  It  was  probably  clearly  presented  in  his 
other  sources.  Luke  had  heard  Paul  and  others  preach  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God.  There  was  no  escap 
ing  this  question.  Jesus  himself  had  pressed  his  claim  as  the 
Son  of  Man  toward  the  close  of  his  ministry,  so  that  his  enemies 
and  his  friends  took  sides  sharply.  Luke  tells  the  whole  story 
of  the  person  of  Christ  as  the  issue  was  developed  during  the 
life  of  Jesus  and  during  the  period  covered  by  the  Acts.  He 
has  written  an  objective  narrative,  but  he  did  not  attempt  to 
conceal  his  own  loyalty  to  Jesus  Christ  as  Lord  and  Saviour. 

1.  The  Jesus  or  Christ  Controversy. — Luke  was  not  one  of 
the  eye-witnesses2  of  Christ,  but  he  was  one  of  the  witnesses3 
to  the  work  of  Christ.  He  was  a  critic  of  the  effect  of  Christ's 
personal  influence  on  men  who  knew  him  in  the  flesh  and  who 
worshipped  him  as  God  and  Saviour.  Luke  had  to  face 
squarely  the  problem  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ  (the  Messiah).  It 
was  put  up  to  him  by  the  eye-witnesses.  Luke,  as  we  have 
seen,  was  not  a  Jew,  and  so  was  not  expecting  a  Messiah.  He 
was  not  prejudiced  against  Jesus  as  were  the  Pharisees,  with 
their  theory  of  a  political  and  eschatological  kingdom  for  the 
Messiah.  But  the  heathen  myths  made  it  more  difficult,  if 
anything,  for  him  to  accept  the  facts  about  the  incarnation  of 
Christ,  the  virgin  birth,  and  Christ's  resurrection  from  the 
dead.  Certainly,  the  emperor-worship  was  enough  to  disgust 

1  The  Expositor  (London),  1920. 

2  afi-rficrai.     There  is  a  striking  example  of  aijTdxnjs  in  P.  Oxy.,  VIII, 
1154,  8  (late  1  A.  D.),  auT67crrj<;  Y&p  e£(ju  TWV  T6x<ov  xal  oix  ef^xl  ££v[o]o<;  TWV 
IvOdSs,  translated  by  Moulton  and  Milligan:  "For  I  am  personally  ac 
quainted  with  these  places,  and  am  not  a  stranger  here." 



any  intelligent  man,  as  it  did  most  of  the  men  of  light  of  that 
time.  It  was  not  easy  for  an  educated  man  in  Luke's  day  to 
accept  the  deity  of  Jesus  and  to  worship  a  man.  The  cross  of 
Jesus  was  a  stumbling-block  to  the  Jew  and  foolishness  to  the 
Greek.  Luke  felt  the  force  of  both  objections. 

Luke  is  the  typical  man  of  culture  of  his  time.  He  does  not 
tell  the  mental  processes  by  which  he  came  to  take  Jesus  as 
the  Christ.  But  we  may  be  sure  that  he  would  understand 
the  temper  of  the  modern  college  man  or  woman  who  finds 
difficulty  in  reconciling  the  deity  of  Jesus  with  modern  Dar 
winism.  It  was  just  as  hard  for  Luke  to  make  the  person  of 
Christ  square  with  the  scientific  theories  of  Galen  and  Hippoc 
rates.  We  must  try  to  understand  the  problems  of  the  college 
and  university  life  of  our  day.  I  wish  to  recommend  Mc- 
Kenna's  The  Adventure  of  Life  as  a  book  admirably  adapted  to 
help  the  really  sincere  spirits  who  wish  to  face  the  facts  of 
nature  and  of  grace.  This  English  physician  and  devout 
Christian  wrote  his  book  in  his  den  at  the  front  in  France  in 
the  midst  of  death  and  life.  He  is  a  man  after  Luke's  own 
heart,  and  looks  at  all  the  facts  with  a  calm  and  clear  gaze. 
He  is  an  evolutionist  and  gives  his  conception  of  the  develop 
ment  of  the  universe  up  to  man.  Then  he  finds  a  place  for 
Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  in  the  scientific  universe  of  Darwin, 
and  he  worships  him  as  his  saviour  from  sin.  It  is  utterly 
frank  and  very  able  and  helpful.  It  is  just  as  gratuitous  to 
accuse  Luke  of  credulity  as  McKenna.  One  is  bound  to 
believe  that  Luke  had  an  experience  of  Christ  in  his  heart  and 
life  before  he  clearly  grasped  the  conception  of  the  person  of 
Christ.  Glover  in  his  Jesus  of  History  likewise  understands 
Luke  and  the  temper  of  modern  young  people  of  culture  with 
a  craving  to  know  Christ.  We  may  be  sure  that  Luke  did  not 
write  carelessly  the  tremendous  statements  concerning  the 
deity  of  Jesus.  He  writes  in  the  light  of  his  own  extensive 
researches,  after  long  investigation  of  the  claims  and  the  power 
of  Christ,  and  out  of  a  full  heart.  He  had  himself  put  Jesus 
to  the  test  in  his  own  life.  He  had  seen  others  live  for  Christ 
and  die  for  Christ.  Luke  loved  his  medical  science,  but  he 
loved  Jesus  more.  He  was  a  "doctor  of  the  old  school,"  who 
was  able  to  make  the  sick-room  a  sanctuary  of  God.  He  was 
a  partner  with  God  and  looked  to  the  Great  Physician  to  bless 
his  work. 


Luke  wrote  with  the  Logia  before  him.  The  Logia  (Q)  had 
precisely  the  same  elements1  in  its  picture  of  Christ  that  we 
find  in  the  Gospel  of  John.2  Mark3  wrote  before  Luke,  and 
Mark's  picture  of  Christ  agrees  with  that  of  the  Logia.  Luke 
was  Paul's  bosom  friend.  Luke  knew  Paul's  idea  of  Christ. 
So  Luke  had  to  face  the  Jesus  or  Christ  controversy  of  mod 
ern  theologians.4  He  identified  the  theological  Christ  with 
the  historic  Jesus.  He  did  not  do  so  blindly.  From  the  be 
ginning  he  found  the  evidence  that  convinced  him.  It  is  a 
modern  intellectual  impertinence  that  men  of  culture  do  not 
accept  the  deity  of  Jesus.  Gladstone  says  that  out  of  sixty 
master  minds  that  he  knew,  fifty-five  of  them  took  Jesus  hum 
bly  as  God  and  Saviour. 

Luke  the  historian  records  his  idea  of  the  person  of  Christ. 
He  does  not  use  Pauline  terminology.  He  follows  the  lan 
guage  of  his  primitive  sources.  He  lets  us  see  that  the  witness 
is  very  old  and  goes  back  to  the  very  life  of  Christ.  It  is  not 
a  theological  dogma  of  a  late  date,  invented  to  suit  the  deifica 
tion  of  Jesus.  Luke  writes  in  a  true  historic  spirit,  and  lets 
us  see  how  Jesus  impressed  the  men  of  his  time  and  how 
Jesus  regarded  himself. 

2.  The  Son  of  God. — Luke  does  not  write  as  a  theologian. 
He  does  not  express  his  own  views  in  theological  language,  as 
Paul  does  in  his  Epistles.  He  makes  no  theological  arguments 
or  definitions.  He  keeps  his  own  personality  in  the  back 
ground,  but  he  reveals  his  own  views  by  the  nature  of  the 
material  that  he  presents.  We  may  agree  or  disagree  with 
Luke's  picture  of  Christ,  but  he  has  drawn  it  with  absolute 
clearness  and  after  mature  reflection  and  with  manifest  convic 
tion.  He  comes  to  the  interpretation  of  Christ  without  Phar 
isaic  limitations  and  from  the  standpoint  of  a  cosmopolitan. 
Wright5  thinks  that  Luke  had  conversations  with  John,  the 
author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  since  both  mention  the  fact 
that  the  sepulchre  in  which  our  Lord's  body  lay  was  a  new 
one,  "where  no  one  had  yet  lain"  (Luke  23 :  53).  He  thinks 

1  See  my  article,  "  The  Christ  of  the  Logia,"  in  the  Contemporary  Review, 
August,  1919. 

2  See  my  Divinity  of  Christ  in  the  Gospel  of  John  (1916). 

3  See  my  Studies  in  Mark's  Gospel  (1919). 

4  Cf .  The  Hibbert  Journal  Supplement  for  1909. 

5  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Christ  and  the  Gospels. 


that  much  of  John's  teaching  was  "esoteric,  intended  for  ad 
vanced  disciples  only/'  but  there  are  Johannean  patches  in 
Luke's  Gospel,  as,  for  instance,  Luke  10:21-24  (cf.  Matt. 
11:25-30).  Be  that  as  it  may,  it  can  be  shown  that  Luke 
conceived  Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God  in  the  full  sense  of  that 
phrase.  He  has  not  written  his  Gospel  to  prove  that  thesis 
as  John  has  done  in  his  Gospel  (20 : 30  f.),  but  in  numerous 
instances  he  shows  clearly  what  he  means  his  readers  to  under 
stand  about  Jesus. 

Luke  records  the  angel  Gabriel  as  saying  to  Mary  of  the 
promised  child:  "He  shall  be  great,  and  shall  be  called  the 
son  of  the  Most  High:  and  the  Lord  God  shall  give  unto  him 
the  throne  of  his  father  David:  and  he  shall  reign  over  the 
house  of  Jacob  forever;  and  of  his  kingdom  there  shall  be  no 
end,"  (Luke  1 :  32-33).  This  is,  to  be  sure,  the  Old  Testament 
picture  in  broad  outline  of  the  Messiah,  but  not  the  Pharisaic 
conception.  In  II  Sam.  7 : 5-17  Nathan's  words  to  David 
from  Jehovah  are  recorded.  David's  son  is  to  build  Jehovah 
a  house  and  the  throne  of  his  kingdom  is  to  be  established 
forever.  This  covenant  with  David  is  referred  to  at  length 
in  Psalm  89,  where  it  is  interpreted  in  Messianic  language. 
Nearly  all  of  the  language  of  Christ's  words  to  Peter  in  Matt. 
16 : 18  f.  appears  in  Psalm  89.  We  need  not  think  that  David 
or  Nathan  or  the  author  of  Psalm  89  understood  the  language 
about  the  perpetuity  of  the  Davidic  throne  in  the  spiritual 
sense  as  Jesus  interprets  it  in  Matt.  16 : 18  f.  Luke  clearly 
understands  the  words  of  Gabriel  to  Mary  in  the  sense  of  the 
spiritual  Israel  that  Paul  teaches  in  Gal.  3  and  Romans  9:11. 
The  context  in  Luke's  Gospel  shows  that  he  means  us  to  un 
derstand  that  by  "the  son  of  the  Most  High"  he  is  describing 
the  real  deity  of  Jesus. 

He  is  human  on  the  side  of  his  mother  Mary,  but  is  begot 
ten  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  When  Mary  expressed  her  wonder 
and  surprise,  Gabriel  replies:  "The  Holy  Spirit  shall  come 
upon  thee,  and  shall  overshadow  thee:  wherefore  also  the 
holy  thing  which  is  begotten  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son 
of  God"  (Luke  1 :  35).  The  idea  of  the  Shekinah  is  suggested 
here  (Ex.  40:38).  "The  cloud  of  glory  signified  the  Divine 
presence  and  power."1  The  unborn  child  is  called  "holy"  as 
free  from  all  taint  of  sin.2  There  is  no  discounting  the  fact 

1  Plummer,  in  loco.  8  Ibid. 


that  Luke  indorses  these  words  of  Gabriel  as  a  true  forecast 
of  the  life  of  Jesus  which  he  will  present  in  his  Gospel.  Luke 
believed  the  simple  story  of  Mary  about  the  birth  of  Jesus. 
Thus  he  interprets  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God.  Efforts 
have  been  made  to  empty  the  words  "the  Son  of  God"1  of 
their  natural  content,  but  with  no  success.  True,  Adam  is 
called  by  Luke  the  Son  of  God  in  3 : 38,  but  the  context  is 
utterly  different.  God  created  Adam,  but  begot  Jesus  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Adam  was  not  an  incarnation  of  God,  but  God's 
offspring,  as  all  men  are  (Acts  17 :  28). 

And  then  Elizabeth  greets  Mary  as  "the  mother  of  my 
Lord"2  (Luke  1 : 43).  Here  the  word  "Lord"  is  not  a  mere 
title  of  rank  or  even  in  the  sense  ascribed  in  the  papyri  so  often 
to  Caesar,  but  it  is  the  Old  Testament  usage  as  in  Psalm  90 : 1. 
Elizabeth  means  Messiah  by  Lord.  Plummer3  properly  notes 
that  the  expression  "Mother  of  God"  does  not  occur  in  the 
Bible.  Didon4  wrongly  translates  the  language  of  Luke  1 : 43 
by  "la  mere  de  mon  Dieu."  But  the  Greek  word  for  Lord  in 
the  Septuagint  commonly  occurs  for  the  Hebrew  Jehovah. 

The  shepherds  hear  the  angel  describe  the  Babe  of  Bethle 
hem  as  "a  Saviour,  who  is  Christ  the  Lord." 5  It  is  possible  to 
say  that  Luke,  if  translating  an  Aramaic  source,  whether  oral 
or  written,  may  have  followed  the  Septuagint  in  Lam.  4 : 20, 
where  "the  anointed  of  the  Lord"  is  rendered  by  "the  Anointed 
Lord."6  The  same  peculiar  expression  occurs  in  Psalms  of 
Solomon  17:36.  "The  combination  occurs  nowhere  else  in 
N.  T.,  and  the  precise  meaning  is  uncertain.  Either '  Messiah, 
Lord/  or  'Anointed  Lord/  or  'the  Messiah,  the  Lord/  or  'an 
anointed  one,  a  Lord/"7  But  it  is,  at  any  rate,  plain  that 
the  highest  dignity  is  here  ascribed  to  the  child  Jesus. 

In  Luke  2 : 26  we  read  that  Simeon  had  had  a  revelation 

1  utt><;  8eo5.     The  use  of  6  ulb?  TOU  Oeou  would  have  made  the  point 
clearer.    Luke  probably  translates  from  the  Aramaic.     Deissmann  (Bible 
Studies,  pf.  131)  quotes  an  inscription  of  Cos  with  6eou  ulou  Sepaorou  for 
Augustus  and  a  Fayum  papyrus  (Pap.  Berol.  7006)  where  xataapoq  6eou 
ulou   again  refers  to  Augustus. 

2  f)  V^Tf)?  ToiJ  xup(ou  txou.     The  use  of  x£pco<;  as  imperial  title  is  very  common 
in  the  papyri.     See  P.  Oxy.,  375  (A.  D.  49)  -rtpepfou  xXauSfou  xataapo?  TOU 

3  Comrn.,  p.  29.     4  Jesus  Christ,  p.  111.     6  owrPjp  8?  £<JTIV  xptaTbs  x6ptoq. 

6  xptcrcbq  x6pto?.    Cf .  Ps.  90  : 1  and  Sirach  51 : 10. 

7  Plummer,  in  loco. 


that  he  should  not  die  before  he  had  seen  "the  Lord's  Christ'1 1 
or  "the  Lord's  Anointed"  (cf.  Lam.  4:20).  Here  the  deity 
of  Jesus  is  not  brought  out  save  as  it  belongs  to  the  word 
"Anointed"  or  Messiah.  One  may  compare  Luke  9:20, 
where  Luke  has  "the  Christ  (the  Anointed)  of  God"  (Mark 
8 : 29,  "the  Christ,"  Matt.  16 : 17,  "the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God"). 

In  Luke  2 : 49  the  boy  Jesus  expresses  surprise  that  Joseph 
and  Mary  do  not  understand  that  "I  must  be  in  my  Father's 
house."2  This  is  the  correct  translation,  as  the  papyri  show, 
not  "about  my  Father's  business."  But  here  is  the  Messianic 
consciousness  in  the  boy  of  twelve.  God  is  his  Father  in  a 
sense  not  true  of  other  men.  The  Jews  later  accused  Jesus  of 
blasphemy  for  calling  God  "his  own  Father,  and  making  him 
self  equal  with  God"  (John  5 : 18). 

At  the  baptism  of  Jesus  "a  voice  came  out  of  heaven,  Thou 
art  my  beloved  Son;3  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased"  (Luke  3 : 22  = 
Mark  1 : 11  =  Matt.  3: 17).  It  is  possible  that  the  voice  of 
the  Father  suggested  Psalm  2 :  7,  which  D  (Codex  Bezae)  here 
follows.  But  it  is  beyond  question  that  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
here  present  the  deity  of  Jesus  as  clearly  as  does  the  Gospel  of 
John.  It  is  given,  moreover,  at  the  very  beginning  of  Christ's 
ministry,  not  merely  at  the  close.  It  comes  not  as  a  new  revela 
tion  to  Jesus,  but  as  confirmation  of  his  peculiar  relation  to  the 
Father.  John  the  Baptist  saw  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
the  sign  (John  1 : 33)  and  he  heard  the  voice  of  the  Father : 
"  And  I  have  seen  and  have  borne  witness  that  this  is  the  Son  of 
God"  (1 :  34).  This  is  no  mere  Bath-Kol  of  the  rabbis,  an  echo 
of  God's  voice.  It  is  not  the  Cerinthian  Gnostic  idea  of  an 
emanation  upon  Jesus,  the  "Christ"  coming  upon  the  man 
Jesus.  Jesus  does  not  here  "become"  God  or  the  Son  of  God. 
As  the  Son  of  God,  he  is  recognized  by  the  Father  on  the  for 
mal  entrance  upon  his  Messianic  mission  in  the  presence  and 
with  the  sanction  of  the  forerunner.  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit  unite  on  this  august  occasion  in  setting  this  seal  upon 
the  solemn  event. 

In  the  temptations  the  devil  twice  (Luke  4 :  3,  9)  challenges 
Christ's  relation  to  God  by  the  words  "If  thou  art  the  Son  of 

1  tbv  xpt<rrbv  xupfau. 

2  ev  TOC<;  TOU  TOZTp6<;  [xou  8st  slvtxi  [is. 


God  " l  or,  more  exactly,  "  If  thou  art  Son  of  God."  There  is  no 
article  with  Son  in  the  Greek.  There  is  undoubted  allusion 
to  the  voice  of  the  Father  at  the  baptism  (Luke  3 : 22),  but 
the  reference  is  "to  the  relationship  to  God,  rather  than  to 
the  office  of  Messiah."2  The  condition,  being  of  the  first 
class,3  assumes  the  fact  of  Christ's  peculiar  relationship  to 
God,  though  possibly  enjoyed  by  others.  The  devil  does  not 
throw  doubt  on  his  own  temptation,  but  seeks  to  incite  doubt 
in  Jesus  by  urging  him  to  prove  that  he  is  in  reality  God's 
Son  by  the  exercising  of  the  power  of  God. 

In  the  discourse  in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth  (Luke  4 : 16-30) 
Jesus  read  from  the  roll  of  Isaiah  (61:1-2;  58:6)  and  defi 
nitely  claims  that  this  Messianic  passage  is  fulfilled  in  him 
(Luke  4:21).  There  is  no  specific  claim  to  deity  here  save 
as  that  is  involved  in  Christ's  conception  of  the  Messiah.  "  In 
applying  these  words  to  Himself  the  Christ  looks  back  to  His 
baptism.  He  is  more  than  a  Prophet;  He  is  the  Son,  the 
Beloved  One,  of  Jehovah"  (3  :  21,  22).4 

The  Pharisees  challenged  the  right  of  Christ  to  forgive  sins  by 
saying:  "Who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  alone?"  (Luke  5  :  21). 
Jesus  does  not  dispute  the  point  raised,  but  accepts  the  chal 
lenge  and  heals  the  man  on  purpose,  "that  ye  may  know  that 
the  Son  of  Man  hath  authority  on  earth  to  forgive  sins" 
(5 :  24).  He  acts  on  his  own  authority  in  perfect  accord  with 
the  will  of  God  (John  5  : 19,  21).  He  allows  the  Pharisees  and 
the  people  to  draw  the  conclusion  that  he  claims  divine  pre 

In  Luke  6 :  5  Jesus  claims  to  be  "Lord  of  the  Sabbath,"  with 
power  to  change  or  cancel  the  day  as  it  suits  best  his  work. 
This  is  not  a  direct  claim  to  equality  with  God,  but  is  a  revo 
lutionary  position  from  the  usual  Pharisaic  theology  which 
made  men  slaves  of  the  Sabbath. 

One  does  not  care  to  press  the  point  in  the  language  of  the 
demoniac  in  Luke  8 : 28,  who  says :  "  Jesus,  thou  Son  of  the 
Most  High  God."  The  word  "God"  is  not  certain  in  the 
text,  and  "Most  High"  is  a  common  name  for  Jehovah  among 
heathen  nations.5  Perhaps  the  man  was  a  heathen.  The 

1  si  ulbq  e!  TOO  0sou.     Note  emphatic  position  of  uibq.     On  absence  of  arti 
cle,  see  Robertson,  Grammar,  p.  781. 

2  Plummer,  in  loco.  3  Cf.  Robertson,  Grammar,  p.  1009. 

4  Plummer,  in  loco.  6  See  proof  in  Plummer 's  Comm.,  p.  229. 


demoniacs  quickly  acknowledge  the  deity  of  Jesus,  a  fact  that 
was  turned  against  Jesus  by  the  rabbis,  who  used  it  as  a  proof 
that  he  was  in  league  with  the  devil.  But  Luke  records  the 
fact  and  lets  his  readers  draw  their  own  inferences.  Devil 
and  demons  alike  acknowledge  Jesus  as  God's  Son  in  Luke's 

We  have  already  seen  that  in  Luke  9 : 20  Peter  addresses 
Jesus  as  "the  Christ  of  God,"  while  Matt.  16:16  has  "the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God."  Luke's  briefer  form  in 
volves  Matthew's  longer  report. 

On  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration  Luke  (9 : 35)  records  that 
"a  voice  came  out  of  the  cloud,  saying:  This  is  my  Son,  my 
chosen;  hear  ye  him."  Here  many  manuscripts,1  like 
Matt.  17:5  and  Mark  9:7,  have  "my  beloved  Son"  as  in 
Luke  3 : 22.  But  the  variation  in  the  verbal  or  participle  cuts 
no  figure  in  the  testimony  of  the  Father  to  the  peculiar  sonship2 
of  Jesus.  Luke  has  points  of  his  own  concerning  this  great 
event  (Christ's  praying,  the  talk  about  Christ's  decease). 

In  Luke  10 :  22  (=  Matt.  11 :  27)  Jesus  claims  equality  with 
the  Father  by  the  use  of  "the  Father,"  "the  Son,"  as  so  often 
in  John's  Gospel  (cf.  5: 19-20).  "And  it  contains  the  whole 
of  the  Christology  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  It  is  like  *  an  aerolite 
from  the  Johannean  heaven '  ;3  and  for  that  very  reason  it  causes 
perplexity  to  those  who  deny  the  solidarity  between  the  Johan 
nean  heaven  and  the  Synoptic  earth." 4 

When  on  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin  Jesus  is  finally  asked 
pointedly  by  Caiaphas  if  he  is  the  Christ  (Luke  22 : 67)  and 
then  by  all:  "Art  thou  then  the  Son  of  God?"  (22 :  70).  To 
this  he  replied,  "Ye  say  that  I  am,"  a  virtual  affirmative. 
Luke  only  gives  the  ratification  after  dawn  (22 : 66)  of  the 
illegal  condemnation  before  day  given  in  detail  by  Matthew 
and  Mark.  Matthew  (26:63)  represents  Christ  as  put  on 
oath  by  Caiaphas  to  tell  "whether  thou  be  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God,"  to  which  Jesus  gives  an  affirmative  answer  (Matt. 
26 :  64;  Mark  14 :  62).  It  is  all  perfunctory  repetition  in  Luke, 
but  the  same  point  is  clearly  made  that  Jesus  before  the  San 
hedrin  solemnly  claims  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  On  this  con 
fession  of  his  the  vote  was  twice  taken  to  convict  him  of  blas 
phemy.  Clearly,  therefore,  the  Sanhedrin  understood  Jesus  to 

1  A  C  D  P  R.  2  6  u!6?  txou.    Note  article. 

3  Hase,  Geschichte  Jesu,  p.  527.  4  Plummer,  p.  282. 


make  divine  claims.  Jesus  had  said  in  so  many  words:  "But 
from  henceforth  shall  the  Son  of  Man  be  seated  at  the  right 
hand  of  the  power  of  God"  (22:69).  "In  the  allusion  to 
Daniel  7 : 13  they  recognize  a  claim  to  Divinity." l  In  simple 
truth  Luke  records  that  the  Sanhedrin  voted  Jesus  to  be 
worthy  of  death  because  he  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  and 
so  equal  with  God. 

Once  more  Luke  represents  the  risen  Christ  as  claiming 
that  he  is  the  Messiah  of  Old  Testament  prophecy,  whose  suf 
ferings  were  already  foretold  (Luke  24 :  26,  46). 

The  case  is  made  out  with  abundant  clearness  that  Luke's 
Gospel  gives  us  a  picture  of  one  who  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of 
God  in  the  full  sense  of  that  phrase.  Luke  presents  the  real 
deity  of  Jesus,  not  the  mere  divinity  of  humanity.  In  a  word, 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God  in  the  same  sense  that  he  appears  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel,  though  John's  philosophical  language  in 
the  Prologue  is  not  employed.  We  see  this  conception  of 
Christ  in  Mary's  memorials  in  chapters  1  and  2,  in  the  portions 
of  Luke  drawn  from  Mark  and  from  Q,  in  the  Perean  and 
passion  narratives.  It  is  futile  to  try  to  make  Luke's  Christ 
a  mere  man,  even  the  best  of  men.  From  the  virgin  birth  to 
the  ascension  we  see  the  Son  of  God  limned  by  Luke  the 
painter  and  the  historian. 

3.  The  Son  of  Man. — But  Luke  is  not  a  Docetic  Gnostic  any 
more  than  a  Cerinthian  Gnostic.  If  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God 
in  Luke's  Gospel,  he  is  none  the  less  the  Son  of  Man.  Jesus 
is  a  real  man  and  not  a  make-believe  man  without  genuine 
humanity.  Luke's  Gospel  is  that  of  "Jesus,  our  Brother- 
Man."  2  The  Jesus  of  Luke's  Gospel  is  no  pale-faced  dreamer 
out  of  touch  with  his  environment.  As  a  physician  Luke  takes 
special  delight  in  showing  the  phases  and  features  of  his  human 
birth  and  development  side  by  side  with  the  manifest  deity  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

Jesus  is  the  child  of  Mary  and  is  from  the  most  humble  sur 
roundings,  with  no  comforts  for  mother  or  child  (Luke  2 : 4-7). 
Here  we  see  the  physician's  tender  interest  in  the  details  of 
the  birth. 

Like  any  other  child,  Jesus  "grew,  and  waxed  strong,  filled 
with  wisdom;  and  the  grace  of  God  was  upon  him"  (2:40). 

1  Plummer,  p.  519. 

2  Hayes,  Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts,  p.  253. 


Luke  alone  gives  the  picture  of  the  boy  Jesus  in  the  temple 
and  his  obedience  to  Joseph  and  Mary.  "  And  Jesus  advanced 
in  wisdom  and  stature,  and  in  favor  with  God  and  man" 
(2 : 52).  Luke  does  not  moralize  or  dogmatize  about  the 
wonder  of  these  words.  With  wondrous  skill  he  helps  us  to 
see  the  human  growth  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  is  also  the  Son 
of  Man. 

The  tender  sympathy  of  Jesus  is  apparent  at  every  turn  in 
Luke's  Gospel  in  his  love  for  sinners  and  his  pity  for  the  sick 
and  the  suffering.  Luke  pictures  Jesus  as  weeping  over  Jeru 
salem,  that  was  to  reject  him  (19 :  41-44).  Luke  says  that  in 
the  agony  in  Gethsemane  "his  sweat  became  as  it  were  great 
drops  of  blood  falling  down  upon  the  ground"  (22  :  44).  Even 
after  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Luke  emphasizes  the  fact  that 
Jesus  was  more  than  a  mere  ghost  by  his  asking  his  disciples  to 
handle  him  and  by  his  eating  a  piece  of  broiled  fish  (24 :  38-43), 
difficult  as  it  is  to  comprehend  this  transition  stage  in  the 
body  of  Christ. 

Like  the  other  Gospels,  Luke's  Gospel  reports  Jesus  as 
claiming  to  be  the  Son  of  Man,  and  yet  no  one  of  the  Evangel 
ists  calls  Jesus  by  this  term.  It  is  always  used  by  Christ  in 
the  more  than  eighty  instances  in  the  Gospels.  This  agree 
ment  is  not  mere  coincidence,  and  argues  strongly  for  the 
genuineness  of  the  language.  And  yet  there  is  great  agree 
ment  among  modern  scholars  as  to  the  origin  and  the  signifi 
cance  of  the  expression.  Abbott  has  an  exhaustive  treatment 
of  every  phase  of  the  subject  in  his  notable  monograph.1  It  is 
vain  to  try  to  find  the  Aramaic  barnasha,  a  man,  any  one,  in 
some  of  the  crucial  passages  in  the  Gospels,  however  possible 
in  others.  It  is  plain  in  Luke,  as  in  the  other  Gospels,  that 
Christ's  enemies  understood  him  to  make  a  Messianic  claim 
by  the  use  of  "the  Son  of  Man."  That  is  seen  in  Luke  22 :  69 
where  Jesus  calls  himself  "the  Son  of  Man,"  who  will  "be 
seated  at  the  right  hand  of  the  power  of  God."  The  Sanhedrin 
then  retort:  "Art  thou  then  the  Son  of  God?"  The  two 
terms  are  not  interchangeable,  but  evidently  there  is  a  bond 
of  unity.  If  Jesus  had  simply  claimed  to  be  a  man,  there 
would  be  no  meaning  in  the  question.  So  also  in  John  12 : 34 
the  multitude  identify  "the  Christ"  (Messiah)  with  "Son  of 
Man."  In  the  Book  of  Enoch  the  Son  of  Man  has  a  Messianic 

1  The  Son  of  Man,  or  Contributions  to  the  Study  of  the  Thoughts  of  Jesus. 


connotation,  though  it  is  not  clear  whether  all  of  the  book  is 
pre-Christian  or  not.  The  word  occurs  in  Ezekiel  as  his  title 
and  it  is  in  Daniel  7 : 13  f.  as  "one  like  a  Son  of  Man."  The 
expression  emphasizes  the  humanity  of  Christ  and  also  hia 
representative  position  as  the  ideal  and  perfect  man.  But  it 
also  presents  in  popular  apprehension  the  claim  to  the  Mes- 
siahship  without  using  the  technical  word  Messiah.  Thus 
Jesus  avoided  a  technical  issue  with  his  enemies  till  his  hour 
had  come.  But  the  very  phrase  that  reveals  the  true  human 
ity  of  Jesus  implies  that  he  is  more  than  a  man.  The  Son  of 
Man  is  the  Son  of  God,  else  he  could  not  really  be  the  Son  of 

So,  then,  Luke  really  means  that  Jesus  in  his  human  life, 
though  absolutely  genuine,  is  in  a  state  of  voluntary  humilia 
tion,  as  Paul  explains  in  II  Cor.  8:9  and  Phil.  2:5-11.  He 
had  the  limitations  of  weariness  and  suffering  and  sorrow  and 
pain  and  death.  Jesus  battled  with  wrong  at  every  turn. 
He  clashed  with  the  ecclesiastical  hypocrites  of  the  time  who 
crucified  him  for  his  spiritual  reality  and  hostility  to  sham. 
In  his  very  humanity  Jesus  reveals  his  deity  and  is  the  hope 
of  the  race. 

4.  The  Saviour  of  Sinners. — Christ  is  the  great  humanitarian 
of  the  ages,  but  he  is  more.  Jesus  has  drawn  the  picture  of 
the  good  Samaritan  with  his  disregard  for  caste  and  race  and 
religious  prejudice  and  his  sheer  pity  for  a  man  in  trouble. 
Jesus  was  the  friend  of  the  poor,  of  the  sick,  of  the  suffering. 
The  lepers  were  not  afraid  to  draw  nigh  to  him.  The  blind 
cried  out  after  Jesus  when  he  passed  by.  Even  the  dead  heard 
his  voice  and  came  back  to  life.  Jesus  brought  health  and 
healing  at  every  step.  He  carried  light  and  life  with  him  to 
all  who  wished  it.  Jesus  is  the  true  philanthropist.  Nowhere 
is  he  pictured  with  such  attractive  power  as  he  went  about 
doing  good  as  in  Luke's  Gospel.  The  very  heart  of  Luke 
went  out  to  Jesus  in  his  deeds  of  mercy. 

But  there  is  a  deeper  note  than  all  this  blessed  work  of  social 
amelioration.  Jesus  is  the  saviour  from  sin  in  Luke's  Gospel. 
He  is  the  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners,  not  to  condone  their 
sins  or  to  join  in  them,  but  to  win  them  from  their  sins.  Luke's 
Christ  is  Mr.  H.  G.  Wells's  "Limited  God"  right  down  in  the 
midst  of  sinners,  right  down  in  the  trenches,  struggling  and 
fighting  evil  in  its  lair.  Jesus  not  merely  has  sympathy  with 


the  suffering  and  the  sinful.  He  has  love  for  the  souls  of  the 
lost.  He  has  power  to  help  men.  Jesus  sees  the  cross  ahead 
of  him  as  the  way  to  win  the  lost.  He  makes  the  plain  predic 
tion  (9 :  43  f .)  to  Peter  (Luke  9 :  20-27)  and  repeats  it.  He 
knows  the  cost  of  redemption  from  sin  and  he  means  to  pay 
the  price  with  his  life.  It  is  no  mythical  "dying  god"  of  the 
autumn  who  rises,  according  to  the  myth,  in  the  spring,  as  the 
mystery  religions  teach.  Jesus  sees  his  baptism  of  death 
(12 : 49-53)  before  it  comes.  Jesus  is  conscious  that  he  is 
dying  for  men  (22 : 19  ff.).  Substitution  is  not  so  hard  to 
understand  now  as  it  was  before  the  Great  War.  Luke's 
account  of  the  death  on  the  cross  (23 : 32-54)  and  of  the 
resurrection  from  the  dead  is  all  in  harmony  with  the  Pauline 
gospel  of  the  death  of  Christ  for  the  salvation  of  the  sinner. 
In  Luke  we  have  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son  of  Man  giving 
himself  as  the  victim  of  sin  to  save  the  sinner.  The  Gospel  of 
Luke  has  often  been  called  the  Gospel  of  Sacrifice.  "The  Son 
of  Man  must  suffer  many  things"  (Luke  9:22).  And  Jesus 
himself  will  explain  to  the  two  disciples  on  the  way  to  Emmaus : 
"  Behoved  it  not  the  Christ  to  suffer  these  things,  and  to  enter 
into  his  glory?"  (24:26). 

5.  The  Captain  of  Our  Salvation. — Luke  gives  us  a  Christ 
with  a  world  programme.  The  risen  Christ  on  Olivet  (a 
wondrous  picture)  interprets  his  sufferings,  death  and  resur 
rection  as  preliminary  to  the  proclamation  of  repentance  and 
remission  of  sins  to  the  whole  world  (Luke  24:46-49).  The 
disciples  were  to  tarry  in  Jerusalem  till  clothed  with  power 
from  on  high,  and  then  they  were  to  fare  forth  to  the  conquest 
of  the  world.  The  Gospel  closes  with  this  promise  of  divine 
energy  (power,  dunamis,  dynamite)  to  carry  out  this  vast 
undertaking.  The  Acts  opens  with  the  same  promise  of  the 
Father  for  which  they  were  to  wait,  but  which  was  near,  and 
which  did  come  at  the  great  Pentecost.  Jesus  did  not  leave 
the  disciples  in  gloom.  They  were  in  darkness  at  his  death, 
but  were  full  of  joy  at  his  ascension  (Luke  24:52).  The 
greatest  revolution  in  human  history  took  place  in  the  short 
space  of  fifty  days.  Defeat  was  turned  into  victory.  The 
cross  became  the  sign  of  conquest. 

Jesus  lives  as  the  leader  of  men  with  the  forward  look,  who 
hope  for  better  days  and  better  men.  Luke's  Christ  is  the 
risen  Jesus,  who  carries  on  the  work  that  he  began  (Acts  1:1). 


The  Acts,  like  the  Gospel,  records  the  words  and  deeds  of 
Jesus.  This  is  Luke's  conception  of  Christ.  He  would  prob 
ably  not  have  written  those  two  books  at  all  if  they  only 
recorded  ancient  history  that  was  over  and  done.  Luke  had 
a  profound  conviction  that  he  was  recording  the  origin  of  a 
movement  that  was  to  go  to  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth. 
The  kingdom  of  Christ  was  to  overturn  the  kingdom  of 
Satan.  Christ  was  to  overcome  Caesar.  Luke  saw  victory  in 
the  future.  Hence  he  wrote.  He  lived  to  see  the  proof  of  the 
promise.  The  Acts  justifies  the  Gospel.  Paul  answered  the 
call  of  Christ.  The  Roman  Empire  would  fall  at  the  feet  of 
Jesus.  The  conflict  was  to  be  longer  than  Luke  knew,  but  he 
was  sure  that  in  the  end  of  the  day  Jesus  would  win,  for  he  is 
the  Son  of  God  who  is  now  leading  the  forces  of  righteousness 
on  earth  from  his  throne  in  heaven. 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  vicegerent  of  Christ  on  earth,  not 
the  Pope  of  Rome.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  power  of  Christ 
on  earth  for  all  men  who  will  let  him  use  them.  So  the  battle 
goes  on.  The  programme  of  Christ  is  not  yet  completed.  He 
is  coming  back  some  day.  But  that  promise  and  that  hope 
should  be  an  incentive  to  greater  zeal  in  carrying  out  Christ's 
programme,  not  a  sedative  to  endeavor.  Optimism,  not  pes 
simism,  is  the  key-note  of  Luke's  Gospel  and  the  Acts.  Jesus 
is  risen  and  reigns.  Paul  carries  the  Gospel  over  the  Roman 
Empire.  You  and  I  are  to  carry  the  torch  to  the  uttermost 
part  of  the  earth.  We  have  Luke's  Gospel  with  its  wondrous 
picture  of  Christ  to  take  with  us.  We  have  the  Acts  with  the 
marvellous  story  of  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  cheer  us. 
Jesus  is  king.  Let  us  crown  him.  That  is  what  Luke  means 
by  his  Gospel  and  Acts. 



"  Now,  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius  Caesar,  Pon 
tius  Pilate  being  governor  of  Judea,  and  Herod  being  tetrarch  of 
Galilee,  and  his  brother  Philip  tetrarch  of  the  region  of  Iturea  and 
Trachonitis,  and  Lysanias  tetrarch  of  Abilene,  in  the  high  priest 
hood  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas  "  (Luke  3  : 1-3). 

1.  The  Beginning  of  John's  Ministry. — Ancient  historians 
had  great  difficulty  in  giving  precise  dates  for  historical  events. 
Chronological  data  give  modern  scholars  no  end  of  trouble. 
The  ancient  writers  often  made  little  effort  to  give  the  exact 
time.  The  years  were  counted  in  so  many  different  ways. 
The  commonest  way  is  that  pursued  by  Luke  in  his  Gospel, 
3 : 1-3,  where  by  seven  synchronisms  he  dates  the  beginning 
of  the  active  ministry  of  the  Baptist.  Evidently  Luke  is  tak 
ing  pains  to  make  plain  when  John  began  his  work  and  when 
Jesus  entered  upon  his  ministry.  Jesus  was  "about  thirty 
years  old"  (Luke  3:23).  John  was  six  months  older  than 
Jesus  (1 : 26).  John  was  thus  probably  about  thirty  when  he 
began  his  ministry.  If  we  assume  that  the  crucifixion  of 
Jesus  took  place  at  the  Passover  of  A.  D.  30  and  that  there 
were  four  Passovers  in  the  ministry  of  Jesus,  "we  reach  the 
conclusion  that  the  synchronisms  of  Luke  3 : 1,  2  are  calculated 
for  the  summer  (say  July)  of  A.  D.  26." 2  There  is  no  trouble 
with  any  of  the  seven  names  given  by  Luke  save  those  of 
Tiberius  and  Lysanias.  Luke  has  been  sharply  criticised  for 
alleged  blunders  concerning  these  two  rulers,  as  he  has  been 
for  his  mention  of  Quirinius  in  Luke  2:2.  We  have  seen  how 
Luke  has  been  triumphantly  vindicated  about  Quirinius  and 
the  census  of  Augustus.  This  victory  for  Luke  should  at 
least  make  us  pause  before  attacking  him  blindly. 

Now  Tiberius  began  to  reign  in  A.  D.  14,  upon  the  death 
of  Augustus.  The  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius, 
however,  gives  us  the  year  A.  D.  28,  not  A.  D.  26,  two  years 

1The  Methodist  Review  (Nashville),  Oct.,  1920. 
2  Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  386, 


later  than  the  other  data  call  for.  Has  Luke  made  a  slip  here  ? 
We  know  from  Suetonius  (Tib.  xxi)  that  Tiberius  was  asso 
ciated  with  Augustus  in  the  administration  of  the  provinces.1 
Tacitus  (Ann.  I,  iii,  3)  speaks  of  Tiberius  as  "  son,  colleague  in 
empire,  consort  in  tribunician  power."2  Besides,  some  coins 
of  Antioch,  not  accepted  as  genuine  by  Eckert,  count  Tiberius's 
rule  from  A.  D.  12  instead  of  A.  D.  14.  Plummer3  is  doubtful, 
but  is  inclined  to  think  that  Luke  means  to  count  from  A.  D.  14, 
not  A.  D.  12.  The  argument  from  silence  is  always  pre 
carious.  The  Romans  counted  the  beginning  of  a  reign  on  the 
death  of  a  previous  ruler.  But  in  the  case  of  Titus  it  was  not 
done.  Ramsay4  argues  that  thus  we  get  a  clew  to  the  date  of 
Acts:  "So  that  Luke,  being  familiar  with  that  method,  applied 
it  in  the  case  of  Tiberius.  Now  that  was  the  case  with  Titus. 
His  reign  began  from  the  association  with  his  father  on  1st 
July,  A.  D.  71."  That  is  plausible,  to  be  sure,  but  it  is  not  the 
only  interpretation  of  the  fact  about  Titus.  If  it  was  done 
with  Titus,  as  we  know,  it  may  have  been  done  with  Tiberius, 
though  we  have  no  other  knowledge  of  it.  If  others  did  it  in 
the  case  of  Titus,  Luke  could  do  it  in  the  case  of  Tiberius, 
even  if  he  did  not  know  of  the  Titus  case  when  he  wrote. 
Luke  lived  in  the  provinces  where  Tiberius  shared  the  rule 
with  Augustus.  We  must  remember  Quirinius  and  the  census 
again  before  we  dare  to  convict  Luke  of  a  blunder  concerning 

The  difficulty  about  Lysanias  is  more  acute.  Plummer5  puts 
the  case  clearly:  "Not  merely  Strauss,  Gfrorer,  B.  Baur  and 
Hilgenfeld,  but  even  Keim  and  Holtzmann,  attribute  to  Luke 
the  gross  chronological  blunder  of  supposing  that  Lysanias,  son 
of  Ptolemy,  who  ruled  this  region  previous  to  B.  C.  36,  when 
he  was  killed  by  M.  Antony,  is  still  reigning  sixty  years  after 
his  death."  That  is  the  charge,  put  baldly  and  bluntly. 
What  can  be  said  in  reply?  Carpenter6  admits  that  "it  is  in 
any  case  possible  that  the  reference  to  Lysanias  is  a  chrono 
logical  error."  It  is  even  suggested  that  Luke  "somewhat 
carelessly  read  Josephus"  (Ant.  XX,  vii,  1)  where  he  says  that 
Trachonitis  and  Abila  "had  been  the  tetrarchy  of  Lysanias." 

1  Ut  provincias  cum  Augusto  communiter  administraret. 

2  Filiust  collega  imperil,  consors  tribunicice  potestati  adsumilur. 

3  Comm.,  p.  82.  « St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  387. 

B  Comm.,  p.  84.  6  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  p.  229. 


Carpenter  admits  that  it  is  possible  that  there  was  a  second 
Lysanias,  a  tetrarch.  Plummer  notes  the  pure  assumption 
that  only  one  Lysanias  ruled  in  those  parts.  Critics  had  over 
looked  the  fact  that  Lysanias,  son  of  Ptolemy,  was  king,  not 
tetrarch,  as  Luke  and  Josephus  say.  Besides,  an  inscription 
has  been  known  for  a  century  that  ought  to  have  taught  critics 
the  truth.  Plummer  notes  "that  at  the  time  Tiberius  was 
associated  with  Augustus  there  was  a  'tetrarch  Lysanias.5"1 
Moffatt2  called  special  attention  to  the  bearing  of  this  inscrip 
tion,  a  new  and  improved  copy,  found  at  Suk  Wadi  Barada, 
the  site  of  Abila.  It  is  the  dedication  of  a  temple  and  has  the 
words  "on  behalf  of  the  salvation  of  the  Lords  Imperial  and 
their  whole  household"  by  "Nymphaios  a  freedman  of  Lysa 
nias  the  tetrarch."  Ramsay3  has  seized  upon  the  new  copy 
with  avidity  and  shows  that  "the  Lords  Imperial"  can  only 
be  "Tiberius  and  Julia"  (his  mother).  Julia  Augusta  died 
A.  D.  29,  and  the  time  of  this  inscription  must  come  in  between 
A.  D.  14  and  A.  D.  29.  Here,  then,  is  an  inscription  from 
Abila  itself,  which  says  plainly  that  there  was  a  tetrarch 
Lysanias  in  Abilene  at  the  very  time  to  which  Luke  refers. 
Plummer  had  already  said  that  such  a  mistake  on  Luke's  part 
was  "very  improbable."  Now  we  know  that  it  is  the  subjec 
tive  critics  who  were  wrong,  not  Luke.  Once  more  the  very 
stones  have  leaped  up  from  the  ground  and  have  cried  out  in 
defense  of  the  historical  accuracy  of  Luke  concerning  Lysanias 
the  tetrarch. 

2.  The  Length  of  Christ's  Stay  in  the  Tomb. — There  are  vari 
ous  other  chronological  problems  in  Luke's  Gospel,  such  as  the 
three  journeyings  to  Jerusalem  (Luke  9:51;  13:22;  17:11), 
interpreted  by  some  as  only  one,  but  most  likely  the  three 
mentioned  in  John  (7:2ff.;  ll:17f.;  12:1).  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  G.  Mackinlay4  seeks  to  prove  that  Luke  has  three 
parallel  narratives.  I  have  endeavored  to  show5  that  Luke 
(like  Matthew  and  Mark)  really  has  the  death  of  Christ  on 
the  same  day  as  John,  and  ate  the  Passover  at  the  regular  time. 
Luke  agrees  with  all  the  Gospels  as  to  the  length  of  Christ's 
stay  in  the  tomb,  but  makes  the  matter  clearer  than  any  of 

1  Cf .  Boeckh,  Corp.  Inscr.  Gr.,  4523,  4521. 

2  The  Expositor,  January,  1913. 

3  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  298.         4  A  Difficulty  Removed,  1919. 
6  Broadus's  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  pp.  253-7. 


them.  Luke  notes  (23  :  54)  that  the  day  of  the  death  and 
burial  of  Jesus  "was  the  day  of  the  Preparation,  and  the  Sab 
bath  drew  on"  (or  dawned).  The  word  for  "Preparation"  x  is 
to-day  the  name  for  Friday  in  modern  Greek.  It  was  the 
technical  name  for  the  day  before  the  Sabbath.  The  word  for 
"drew  on"2  literally  means  the  coming  of  light,  but  it  was 
used  not  simply  of  the  dawning  of  the  twelve-hour  day,  but 
also  of  the  twenty-four-hour  day.  Matthew  (28  :  1)  uses  it  as 
Luke  does  here:  "Now  late  on  the  Sabbath  day,  as  it  began 
to  dawn  toward  the  first  day  of  the  week."  The  first  day 
began  at  sundown,  the  Jewish  way  of  reckoning.  Luke  adds 
that  "on  the  Sabbath  they  (the  women)  rested  according  to 
the  commandment."  Thus  we  have  a  part  of  Friday  after 
noon  (the  burial)  and  all  of  the  Sabbath  day.  Then  Luke  adds 
(24  :  1)  :  "But  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  at  early  dawn,3  they 
came  unto  the  tomb,  bringing  the  spices  which  they  had  pre 
pared"  (cf.  Matt.  28  :  1  and  Mark  16  :  1).  At  sunrise  (Mark 
16  :  1  ;  John  20  :  1)  Jesus  was  already  risen  from  the  tomb. 
It  is  not  possible  to  escape  this  piece  of  chronology  as  Luke 
has  recorded  it,  unless  Luke  is  in  error.  There  is  no  evidence 
that  he  is  incorrect.  The  use  of  "after  three  days"  a  few 
times  cannot  set  aside  so  plain  a  narrative.  Luke  represents 
Christ  as  saying  that  he  rose  on  the  third  day  (24:  7).  Luke 
has  "on  the  third  day"  (9:22)  where  Mark  (10:34)  has 
"after  three  days."  Free  vernacular  in  all  languages  uses  the 
fuller  phrase  without  meaning  full  seventy-two  hours.  "On 
the  third  day"  cannot  be  understood  as  meaning  "on  the 
fourth  day,"  while  ."after  three  days"  can  be  understood  to 
mean  "on  the  third  day."  So  the  matter  stands  against  all 
theories  to  the  contrary. 

3.  Theudas.  —  The  case  of  Theudas  is  a  test  case  of  one's 
confidence  in  Luke.  As  yet  there  is  no  clear  solution  of  the 
apparent  contradiction  between  Luke  and  Josephus.  In  Acts 
5  :  36  f  .  Luke  mentions  the  revolt  of  Judas  the  Galilean  as 
after  the  revolt  of  Theudas.  Josephus4  mentions  both  of 
them  in  the  same  order  as  Luke  (Theudas  and  Judas),  though 
twenty  lines  apart,  but  Josephus  explains  that  the  revolt  of 
Judas  took  place  in  the  time  of  the  great  census  under  Quirinius 
in  A.  D.  6,  while  the  revolt  under  Theudas  occurred  under  the 

1  xapowxeu^j. 

»  SpOpou  pae&os.  'Ant.  XX,  v,  1  f. 


Emperor  Claudius,  when  Cuspius  Fadus  was  Roman  procura 
tor  (A.  D.  44-46).  Luke  not  only  has  the  chronology  reversed, 
but  reports  Gamaliel  as  speaking  of  the  revolt  of  Theudas 
that,  according  to  Josephus,  took  place  some  thirty  years 
after  his  speech. 

One  explanation  is  that  Luke  read  Josephus  and  was  misled 
by  the  mere  order  there,  and  failed  to  see  the  real  dates,  and 
so  misrepresented  Josephus.  But  that  makes  Luke  very  care 
less  in  this  use  of  Josephus,  if  he  did  use  him.  But  the  differ 
ences  are  so  great  that  scholars  like  Schuerer,1  who  dates  Luke 
after  Josephus,  say  that  Luke  either  did  not  read  Josephus  at 
all  or  forgot  all  that  he  had  read.2  We  have  seen  already  that 
Luke  in  all  probability  wrote  the  Acts  before  70  A.  D.  So  we 
may  dismiss  the  idea  of  any  use  of  Josephus. 

But  the  discrepancy  remains.  It  is  suggested  by  some  that 
Luke  merely  reports  Gamaliel,  who  is  responsible  for  the  error, 
if  it  is  one.  But  Luke  would  hardly  let  it  pass  in  that  case 
with  no  comment. 

At  bottom  we  are  called  on  to  choose  between  the  accuracy 
of  Luke  and  of  Josephus,  unless  both  are  right.  Both  can  only 
be  right  on  the  hypothesis  that  there  were  two  men  by  the 
name  of  Theudas  who  raised  a  revolt.  Rackham3  thinks  that 
"  in  all  probability  both  are  right.  There  were  similar  disturb 
ances  throughout  this  period,  as  Josephus  himself  testifies. 
Theudas  is  a  contracted  form,  which  may  stand  for  a  number 
of  names — Theodotus,  Theodosius,  Theodorus,  etc.,  so  it  is 
quite  possible  that  different  persons  are  referred  to."  Ram 
say4  holds  that  "there  is  no  real  difficulty  in  believing  that 
more  than  one  impostor  may  have  borne  or  taken  the  name 
Theudas."  Nosgen5  observes  that  "Josephus  describes  four 
men  bearing  the  name  Simon  within  forty  years,  and  three 
that  of  Judas  within  ten  years,  all  of  whom  were  instigators  of 

But,  suppose  both  do  refer  to  the  same  man  and  event,  who 
is  to  be  believed?  Furneaux6  says:  "There  is  no  reason  for 
doubting  the  accuracy  of  Josephus'  chronology  at  this  point; 
and  the  remarkable  accuracy  of  Luke's  historical  narrative  is 

1  Lucas  und  Josephs  (Zeitschrift  f,  Krit.  Theol,  1876,  p.  574). 

2  Cf .  Sanday,  Bampton  Lectures,  1893,  p.  278. 

8  Comm.,  p.  74.  *  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  f,  p.  259. 

6  Apostelgeschichte,  p.  147.       6  fiomm.,  in  loco. 


no  sufficient  ground  for  denying  the  possibility  of  inaccuracy 
in  a  speech  composed,  at  least  to  some  extent,  by  himself. " 
We  are  not  assuming  in  our  studies  that  Luke  could  not  be 
inaccurate  in  any  particular.  We  only  ask  that  he  be  treated 
as  fairly  as  Josephus.  Who  has  the  best  reputation  as  a  reli 
able  historian,  Luke  or  Josephus?  To-day  Luke  stands  far 
above  Josephus.  "In  his  Antiquities  Josephus  corrects  many 
mistakes  which  he  made  in  his  earlier  work  on  the  Jewish 

But  in  all  candor  we  must  admit  that  this  difficulty  has  not 
yet  been  solved.  "We  have  to  leave  the  difficulty  unsolved. 
We  must  hope  for  the  discovery  of  further  evidence.  Mean 
time,  no  one  who  finds  Luke  to  be  a  trustworthy  historian  in 
the  rest  of  his  History  will  see  any  difficulty  hi  this  passage." 
Thus  Ramsay2  avows  his  willingness  to  trust  Luke  till  he  is 
proven  to  be  wrong.  That  has  not  been  done  as  to  Acts  5 :  36  f . 
Luke  has  won  the  right  to  be  credited  till  he  is  shown  to  be  in 
error.  We  can  wait  here  for  further  light. 

4.  Paul's  Visits  to  Jerusalem. — There  are  certainly  four, 
probably  five,  of  these  visits  of  Paul  to  the  Jewish  metropolis 
after  his  conversion  (Acts  9:26-30;  ll:29f.  and  12:25; 
15 : 2-29;  probably  18 : 22;  21 : 17-23 : 30).  In  themselves  they 
offer  no  difficulty.  It  is  only  when  we  turn  to  Galatians  that 
trouble  arises.  In  Galatians  1 : 18  and  2 : 1  Paul  speaks  of 
two  visits  to  Jerusalem.  The  visit  in  Acts  9 :  26  and  Gal.  1 : 18 
is  the  same.  But  where  does  Gal.  2 : 1  come  in  ?  Is  it  the 
visit  in  Acts  11 :  29  or  15 : 2  ?  Galatians  was  certainly  written 
before  the  visits  in  Acts  18 : 22  and  21 : 17.  It  would  not  seem 
to  matter  much  except  that  in  Gal.  2 : 1-10  and  Acts  15 :  2-29 
the  Judaizing  controversy  is  up  for  discussion.  Lake,3  how 
ever,  denies  this  and  says  "the  subject  is  not  the  same  at  all." 
He  holds  that  in  Galatians  the  subject  "is  merely  whether  the 
mission  to  the  uncircumcised  should  be  continued,  while  in 
Acts  the  circumcision  of  the  Gentiles  is  the  main  point."  But 
surely  that  is  a  misapprehension  of  Gal.  2 : 1-10,  where  Paul 
so  stoutly  refused  to  allow  Titus  to  be  circumcised  on  the 
demand  of  the  timid  brethren  to  satisfy  the  Judaizers.  Ram 
say  has  urged  that  Paul  means  that  he  was  not  compelled  to 

1  Rackham,  Comm.,  note  2,  p.  74. 

2  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  259. 

*  Hastings's  Diet,  of  the  Ap.  Ch.  ("  Acts  "). 


circumcise  Titus,  but  did  it  voluntarily.  But  that  theory 
makes  incomprehensible  Paul's  vehemence  in  the  matter. 

Quite  a  group  of  modern  scholars  obviate  the  apparent  con 
tradiction  between  the  two  reports  in  Gal.  2 : 1-10  and  Acts 
15 :  2-29,  by  making  them  accounts  of  different  events.  It  is 
argued  that  in  Gal.  2 : 1-10  Paul  really  has  in  mind  the  visit 
to  Jerusalem  in  Acts  11 : 29.  It  is  urged  that  this  view  is 
necessary  because  Paul  in  Galatians  records  all  the  visits  that 
he  made  to  Jerusalem.  But  that  is  not  the  point  in  Galatians. 
There  Paul  is  asserting  his  independence  of  the  Twelve  Apos 
tles  and  showing  that  his  authority  was  on  a  par  with  theirs. 
He  mentions  in  Gal.  1 : 18  f .  that  he  saw  only  Cephas  of  the 
Twelve,  and  made  only  a  pleasant  visit.  In  Acts  11 : 29  f. 
only  "the  elders"  are  mentioned.  It  is  possible  that  the 
Apostles  were  absent  on  this  occasion.  If  so,  Paul  would  not 
need  to  refer  to  this  visit.  Lightfoot  in  his  Commentary  on 
Galatians  has  made  a  powerful  argument  for  the  identification 
of  Gal.  2:1-10  with  Acts  15:2-29.  His  view  is  that  in 
Galatians  Paul  refers  to  the  private  conference  that  took 
place  between  the  two  public  gatherings,  in  which  Paul  won 
Peter,  James  and  John  to  his  view  of  Gentile  freedom  from 
Jewish  ceremonialism.  This  is  what  concerned  Paul's  argu 
ment.  In  Acts  Luke  is  not  interested  in  that  point,  but  nar 
rates  the  public  gatherings  when  the  programme  was  carried 
through.  On  the  whole,  this  view  still  seems  to  be  the  most 
plausible  explanation  of  the  situation.  One  has  only  to  keep 
clearly  before  him  the  purpose  of  Luke  in  the  Acts. 

It  is  not  necessary  here  to  discuss  what  was  done  at  the 
Jerusalem  conference  in  Acts  15,  and  whether  the  text  in  D  is 
to  be  followed  which  omits  "things  strangled,"  and  adds  the 
golden  rule  in  negative  form.  This  text  makes  no  demands 
of  the  Gentiles  at  all  save  purely  moral  issues  (fornication, 
murder,  idolatry).  On  the  whole,  the  other  text  is  most  likely 

It  is  even  argued  by  some  that  Galatians  was  written  before 
the  conference  in  Acts  15,  and  so  Gal.  2 : 1-10  could  not  refer 
to  the  same  event.  This  view  is  advocated  by  Round,1  Emmet,2 
Bartlet,3  Lake4  and  Ramsay.5  But  M.  Jones6  holds  that 

1  The  Date  of  Galatians.  *  Comm.  on  Galatians. 

8  Apostolic  Age,  p.  84.  4  Lake,  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paul. 

6  Expositor,  viii,  5,  pp.  127  f .       6  N.  T.  in  Twentieth  Century,  p.  248. 


such  a  view  utterly  discredits  Luke.  "Acts  has,  however,  an 
equal  claim  to  be  heard  on  this  point,  and  if  the  early  date  of 
Galatians  is  adopted  it  becomes  exceedingly  difficult  to  credit 
the  author  with  any  historical  accuracy,  much  less  regard 
him  as  a  historian  of  first  rank."  Jones  is  not  able  to  under 
stand  how  Ramsay,  in  particular,  "the  strongest  living  advo 
cate  of  the  historical  value  of  Acts,"  is  able  to  reconcile  the 
early  date  of  Galatians  "with  the  repudiation  of  his  (Luke's) 
clear  statement  which  this  date  of  Galatians  involves."  Jones1 
feels  that  "the  historical  value  of  the  book  reaches  its  climax 
in  the  discussion  of  the  story  of  the  Apostolic  Council  in  Jeru 
salem  in  Acts  15."  The  very  fact  that  Ramsay  has  come 
round  to  the  early  date  of  Galatians  and  still  takes  the  view 
that  Luke's  history  is  unsurpassed  in  respect  of  its  trustworthi 
ness2  is  enough  to  make  one  pause.  But,  on  the  whole,  I 
sympathize  with  Jones  in  his  contention  that  the  straight 
forward  narrative  of  events  in  Acts  calls  for  a  date  for  Gala 
tians  subsequent  to  the  Jerusalem  conference.  We  are  not 
called  upon  here  to  settle  the  Galatian  controversy,  but  only 
to  say  that  it  is  gratuitous  from  the  standpoint  of  Acts  to 
create  a  difficulty  by  the  early  date  of  Galatians  which  does 
not  exist  on  the  theory  of  the  late  date.  The  data  in  Gala 
tians  are  wholly  indecisive  in  themselves  and  readily  allow  the 
later  date  between  II  Corinthians  and  Romans  which  Light- 
foot  proposed.  That  theory  leaves  both  Paul  and  Luke  intelli 
gible  and  reliable.  It  is  not  scientific  and  fair  to  Luke  to  foist 
upon  Acts  a  view  of  Galatians  that  throws  his  historical  data 
into  a  jumble.  Once  more  we  can  say  that  Luke's  credit  as  a 
historian  is  too  great  to  be  upset  by  a  mere  speculative  theory 
as  to  the  date  of  Galatians.  I  am  not  willing  to  say  with 
Jones3  that,  "if  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  was  written  at 
this  period,  St.  Luke  must  have  entirely  misconceived  the 
situation,  and  he  ceases  to  have  any  claim  to  our  respect  as  a 
serious  historian."  But  I  do  say  that  Luke's  proved  veracity 
as  a  historian  stops  the  acceptance  of  a  mere  theory,  by  no 
means  the  most  probable  one,  of  the  date  of  Galatians.  Luke 

1  Ibid.,  p.  242. 

2  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  81. 

3  Op.  cit.,  p.  249.    Jones  stands  by  this  position  against  Plooij,  who 
also  adopts  the  view  that  Galatians  is  before  the  Jerusalem  conference  in 
Acts  15  (Expositor,  June,  1919,  pp.  444  f.). 


is  entitled  to  that  much  consideration  unless  the  earlier  date 
can  be  proved  true  beyond  controversy. 

5.  The  Death  of  Herod  Agrippa  I  and  the  Famine  in  Judea. — 
In  Acts  11 : 27-30  Luke  mentions  the  prophecy  of  the  famine 
by  Agabus  and  the  contribution  to  the  poor  saints  in  Jerusalem 
by  the  Gentile  (Greek)  Church  in  Antioch  which  Barnabas  and 
Saul  turned  over  to  the  elders.  Luke  does  not  specifically  say 
that  the  famine  had  actually  begun  when  the  money  was  sent, 
but  Ramsay1  rejects  Lightfoot's  view  that  the  money  was 
brought  a  year  or  more  before  the  famine  as  not  "  a  natural  or 
a  useful  procedure."  What  was  the  date  of  the  famine? 
Josephus  (Ant.  XX,  v)  places  it  in  the  procuratorship  of 
Alexander,  which  ended  in  A.  D.  48  and  could  not  have  begun 
before  45.  So,  then,  A.  D.  46  is  the  probable  year.  Orosius 
(VII,  vi),  a  writer  of  the  fifth  century,  locates  the  beginning  of 
the  famine  in  the  fourth  year  of  Claudius,  which  would  be 
A.  D.  45.  The  beginning  of  the  current  year  of  reckoning  has 
always  to  be  borne  in  mind,  and  Ramsay2  notes  a  failure 
always  to  do  this  in  Turner's  "Chronology  of  the  N.  T."  in 
Hastings's  D.  B.  So,  then,  the  years  45  and  46  can  very  well 
be  the  years  of  the  famine. 

^  Luke  (Acts  12 :  20-23)  gives  the  death  of  Herod  before  men 
tioning  the  return  of  Barnabas  and  Saul  to  Antioch  (12 : 25), 
though  verse  24  suggests  an  interim  of  some  sort,  and  verse  25 
really  belongs  to  the  story  of  chapter  13.  The  precise  sequence 
of  events  in  chapters  11  and  12  is  not  clear.  Herod  Agrippa 
killed  James  the  brother  of  John  (12:2)  and  put  Peter  in 
prison,  who,  on  his  miraculous  release,  left  the  city  (12: 17). 
Was  this  persecution  of  the  Apostles  by  Herod  after  the  visit 
of  Barnabas  and  Saul  or  before?  The  coins3  say  that  Herod 
Agrippa  I  reigned  nine  years,  while  Josephus  asserts  that  he 
died  in  the  seventh  year  of  his  reign.  The  coins  are  considered 
spurious  by  some,  and  others  think  that  Josephus  reckons 
from  A.  D.  39,  when  the  tetrarchy  of  Antipas  was  added  to 
the  rule  of  Herod,  instead  of  37,  when  he  was  appointed  king 
of  the  tetrarchy  of  Philip.  In  A.  D.  41  Judea,  Samaria  and 
Abilene  were  added,  so  that  till  A.  D.  44  Herod  Agrippa  I 
ruled  over  all  of  Palestine.  Josephus  contradicts  himself  in 

1  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  69. 

2  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  f,  p.  222  f. 

3  Madden,  Coins  of  the  Jews,  p.  130. 


the  War  and  the  Antiquities.    On  the  whole,  A.  D.  44  appears 
as  the  most  likely  date  for  the  death  of  Herod  (so  Turner). 

If  this  is  true,  we  must  think  of  the  events  of  Acts  12 : 1-23 
(up  to  the  death  of  Herod  in  A.  D.  44)  as  happening  before  the 
famine  in  Judea  of  Acts  11 :  27-30  (A.  D.  45-46)  with  the  visit 
of  Barnabas  and  Saul.  In  that  case,  the  Apostles  had  left 
Jerusalem,  and  Barnabas  and  Saul  performed  their  mission 
with  the  elders  (11 : 30)  and  went  back  to  Antioch  with  John 
Mark  (12 : 25).  The  story  is  intelligible  and  Luke  is  con 
sistent.  These  two  dates  (A.  D.  44  and  45-46)  give  us  a  fairly 
definite  point  of  contact  between  Luke's  narrative  and  the 
outside  world. 

6.  The  Expulsion  of  the  Jews  from  Rome. — In  Acts  18 : 2 
Luke  says  that  Aquila  and  his  wife  Priscilla  had  "lately  come 
from  Italy,"  "because  Claudius  had  commanded  all  the  Jews 
to  depart  from  Rome."     Paul  found  them  in  Corinth  on  his 
arrival  there  from  Athens  (18: 1  f.).    Here  again  Luke  gives 
a  point  of  contact  with  general  history.    When  were  the  Jews 
expelled  from  Rome?    Suetonius1  mentions  the  event,   but 
gives  no  date.    Josephus  and  Tacitus  fail  to  mention  the  fact. 
If  Suetonius  had  not  done  so,  this  would  have  been  another 
error  charged  up  to  Luke.     Orosius  (VII,  vi,  15)  says  that  it 
was  in  the  ninth  year  of  Claudius,  which  would  put  it  about 
A.  D.  50  as  he  counted  the  years.2    This  year  suits  very  well 
Luke's  narrative  in  Acts  18  : 1  f. 

7.  Gallio's  Proconsulship.—Luke  (Acts  18 : 12  ff.)  says  that 
Paul  was  brought  to  trial  in  Corinth  "when  Gallio  was  pro 
consul   of   Achaia."    Turner   in   his   notable   article   on  the 
"Chronology  of  the  N.  T."  (Hastings's  D.  £.)  had  concluded 
that  Gallio  entered  upon  his  proconsulship  probably  not  before 
A.  D.  50.     But  Deissmann  in  his  St.  Paul3  has  discussed  the 
meaning  of  an  inscription  at  Delphi,  which  refers  to  Gallio  as 
proconsul,  with  the  date  the  26th  "acclamation"  of  the  Em 
peror  Claudius.    A  Russian,  A.  Nikitsky,  first  published  this 
inscription,4  but  Deissmann  has  shown5  that  "St.  Paul  must 
have  come  to  Corinth  in  the  first  month  of  the  year  50,  and 
left  Corinth  late  in  the  summer  of  the  year  51,"  unless,  for- 

1  Claudius,  25.     Judceos,  impulsore  Christo,  assidue  tumultuantes  Roma 

2  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethlehem  ?,  p.  223.       3  Appendix  I. 

4  Epigraphical  Studies  at  Delphi,  1898.  *0p.  cit.,  p.  256. 


sooth,  the  years  are  51  and  52  respectively.1  The  date  of  the 
27th  acclamation  of  Claudius  is  known  by  an  inscription  to  be 
August  1,  A.  D.  52.  So,  then,  Gallio  was  proconsul  before 
that  date.  We  know  that  "the  22nd,  23rd,  and  24th  acclama 
tions  all  came  in  the  llth  tribunician  year"  of  Claudius  (Lake), 
which  was  January  25,  A.  D,  51,  to  January  24,  A.  D.  52. 
The  date  of  the  25th  acclamation  has  not  been  found,  "  so  that 
really  the  end  of  51  is  the  earliest  probable  date  for  the  26th 
acclamation."2  So,  then,  the  Delphi  inscription  with  the 
26th  acclamation,  while  Gallio  was  proconsul,  falls  between 
the  end  of  A.  D.  51  and  August  1,  A.  D.  52.  The  proconsul 
usually  entered  upon  his  office  July  1.  Gallio,  then,  began  his 
office  either  July  1,  A.  D.  51,  or  July  1,  A.  D.  52.  The  latter 
date,  though  possible,  would  put  less  than  a  month  between 
the  26th  and  the  27th  acclamations.  Paul  had  been  a  year 
and  six  months  in  Corinth  before  Gallio  came  (Acts  18:1). 
He  did  not  stay  long  thereafter.  Gallio  was  probably  procon 
sul  July  1,  A.  D.  51,  to  July  1,  A.  D.  52.  If  the  Jews  brought 
Paul  before  Gallio  soon  after  he  came  into  office,  Paul  probably 
left  Corinth  in  the  late  summer  or  early  autumn  of  A.  D.  51. 
He  came  to  Corinth  in  the  early  months  of  A.  D.  50,  which 
date  agrees  with  the  previous  date  already  arrived  at  in  this 
chapter.  While  in  Corinth,  during  A.  D.  50-51,  Paul  wrote  the 
two  Epistles  to  the  Church  in  Thessalonica. 

All  things  considered,  the  Delphi  inscription  gives  us  the 
one  certain  date  in  Paul's  ministry  and  in  the  Book  of  Acts. 
All  other  dates  must  now  be  made  to  conform  to  the  new  light 
here  turned  upon  the  chronology  of  the  Acts  and  of  Paul's 
Epistles.  The  first  mission  tour  (A.  D.  46  and  47,  or  47  and 
48)  follows  the  famine  and  visit  of  Barnabas  and  Saul  to  Jeru 
salem  (A.  D.  45-46).  The  Jerusalem  conference  could  come 
also  in  A.  D.  48  and  the  new  tour  begin  in  A.  D.  48,  with  the 
arrival  in  Corinth,  A.  D.  50.  All  dates  in  Acts  and  Paul's 
Epistles  have  to  be  on  a  sliding  scale.  M.  Jones3  has  made  a 
fine  survey  of  A  New  Chronology  of  the  Life  of  St.  Paul,  by 
Plooij,4  a  Dutch  scholar,  who  has  gone  over  the  whole  ground 
afresh.  But  we  strike  terra  firma  in  the  Delphi  inscription. 

8.  The  Coming  of  Festus.—Luke  says  (Acts  24:27):  "But 

1  Ibid.,  p.  255.  2  Lake,  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Ch. 

8  The  Expositor,  May,  June  and  August,  1910. 
4  De  Chronologie  van  het  leven  van  Paulus. 


when  two  years  were  fulfilled,  Felix  was  succeeded  by  Porcius 
Festus."  Here  again  we  come  upon  a  note  of  time  in  touch 
with  the  Roman  world,  but  unfortunately  the  date  is  pecu 
liarly  uncertain.  Lightfoot  picked  out  the  death  of  Herod 
Agrippa  I  in  A.  D.  44  (45  for  Paul's  second  visit)  and  the 
voyage  of  Paul  and  Luke  to  Rome  in  A.  D.  60  as  the  foci  for 
fixing  Paul's  career.  "We  have  thus  ascertained  two  fixed 
dates  in  the  chronology  of  St.  Paul's  life — A.  D.  45  for  his 
second  journey  to  Jerusalem  and  A.  D.  60  for  his  voyage  to 
Rome.  The  former  of  these  being  an  isolated  event  in  St. 
Luke's  narrative  is  of  little  value  comparatively  for  our  pur 
pose;  but  from  the  latter  the  whole  of  the  known  chronology  of 
St.  Paul's  life  is  determined,  by  means  of  the  notices  in  the 
Acts  of  the  sequence  of  events  and  the  time  occupied  by  them, 
together  with  occasional  allusions  in  the  Epistles."1  But, 
unfortunately,  the  date  of  the  coming  of  Festus  is  by  no  means 
clear.  Lightfoot  argued  that  Paul  on  his  arrival  at  Rome  was 
turned  over  "to  the  prefect  of  the  prsetorium"2  according  to 
the  reading  of  some  manuscripts  for  Acts  28 : 16,  and  so  it  was 
while  Burrhus  was  in  office.  He  died  in  62,  and  61  would  be 
a  good  date.  But  Ramsay3  shows  that  this  officer  was  most 
likely  the  Princeps  Peregrinorum,  and  the  argument  about 
Burrhus  is  beside  the  point.  Eusebius  places  the  coming  of 
Festus  in  place  of  Felix  in  the  last  year  of  Claudius,  A.  D.  54, 
but  if  Eusebius  is  right  Luke  is  wrong,  for  we  cannot  add  two 
years  in  Caesarea  and  time  for  other  events  from  Corinth 
(A.  D.  51)  to  Antioch,  the  three  years  in  Ephesus,  and  the 
trip  to  Macedonia  and  to  Corinth  and  then  to  Jerusalem,  and 
then  two  years  in  Csesarea  under  Felix,  all  by  A.  D.  54.  The 
thing  cannot  be  done.  We  have  stuck  a  peg  in  Corinth  when 
Gallio  came  in  A.  D.  51.  Who  is  right  here,  Eusebius  or 
Luke?  Ramsay4  confesses  that  his  prejudices  were  all  in 
favor  of  Eusebius,  and  he  was  not  willing  to  admit  that  he  had 
"  committed  an  inexplicable  blunder."  But  Erbes5  gave  Ram 
say6  the  clew  to  the  mistake  of  Eusebius.  Eusebius  overlooked 

1  "The  Chronology  of  St.  Paul's  Life  and  Epistles"  (Biblical  Essays, 
pp.  220  f.). 

2  T$  crpaToxeSdcpxT}.  3  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  347. 
4  "The  Pauline  Chronology"  (Pauline  and  Other  Studies,  p.  349). 
B"Todestage  Pauli  und  Petri"   (Gebhardt  and  Harnack's  Texte  und 

Untersuch.,  XIV,  1). 
6  Pauline  and  Other  Studies,  p.  350. 


the  interregnum  between  Herod  Agrippa  I,  who  died  in  A.  D.  44, 
and  Herod  Agrippa  II,  who  began  to  reign  A.  D.  50,  not  A.  D. 
45.  So  the  tenth  year  of  his  reign  when  Festus  came  was 
A.  D.  59.  This  comes  very  close  to  the  date  of  Lightfoot, 
who  made  A.  D.  60  as  the  date  of  the  recall  of  Felix  and  the 
coming  of  Festus.  We  may,  therefore,  accept  A.  D.  59  as  the 
time  when  Festus  came  to  Csesarea.  Ramsay1  even  thinks 
that  Acts  20 : 5  ff.  shows  that  Paul  celebrated  Passover  in 
Philippi  Thursday,  April  7,  A.  D.  57.  At  any  rate,  that  is  in 
accord  with  the  other  dates  shown  to  be  probable.  Jones2 
agrees  that  "Felix  was  relieved  by  his  successor  Festus,  some 
time  in  the  summer  of  59."  The  two  years  of  Paul's  imprison 
ment  in  Csesarea,  therefore,  were  the  summer  of  A.  D.  57  to 
summer  of  A.  D.  59.  Zenos3  still  argues  for  A.  D.  60  for  the 
coming  of  Festus,  but  A.  D.  59  has  the  best  of  it  at  the  pres 
ent.  Luke  comes  out  with  flying  colors  in  these  various  chron 
ological  tests  in  every  instance  save  that  of  Theudas.  In  that 
instance,  for  the  present,  we  must  suspend  judgment. 

Harnack4  gives  an  interesting  summary  of  the  chronological 
data  in  the  Acts,  where  occur  statements  of  years,  months, 
days,  feasts  and  indefinite  dates.  They  make  a  considerable 
list.  Harnack  notes  that  nowhere  in  Acts  does  Luke  give  a 
scientific  dating  of  any  event,  as  in  Luke  3:1.  That  is  true, 
but,  as  we  have  seen,  he  frequently  connects  his  narrative  with 
the  stream  of  history  in  his  time,  so  that  we  are  now  able  to 
draw  a  reasonably  accurate  and  clear  outline  for  the  chronol 
ogy  of  the  whole  of  Acts.  Ramsay5  says  that  "Luke  was 
deficient  in  the  sense  for  time;  and  hence  his  chronology  is 
bad."  That  is  only  true  so  far  as  making  definite  dates  and 
keeping  the  relative  proportion  of  dates.  He  is  far  better  in 
this  than  most  of  the  ancients,  who  did  not  have  our  concern 
for  outstanding  dates. 

1  Pauline  Studies,  p.  352. 

2  "  A  New  Chronology  of  the  Life  of  St.  Paul "  (The  Expositor,  August, 
1919,  p.  117). 

3  Article  "Dates"  in  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Church. 

4  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  6-30. 
6  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  18. 



"And  the  lictors  reported  these  words  unto  the  praetors"  (Acts 

1.  The  Test  of  Historical  Geography. — The  historian,  if  he  is 
not  a  mere  rhetorician  and  word-painter,  must  call  names  and 
titles  and  places  as  well  as  dates.  We  have  seen  how  Luke 
fares  under  the  test  of  modern  scholarship  in  the  matter  of 
chronology.  It  remains  to  examine  his  treatment  of  points  of 
archaeological  and  geographical  interest.  If  Josephus  crosses 
Luke's  path  in  historical  details,  Strabo  in  his  geography  trav 
erses  much  of  the  same  ground  that  Luke  traces  in  the  Acts. 
But  both  Strabo  and  Xenophon  tell  much  less  than  Luke 
does  concerning  certain  parts  of  Asia  Minor  through  which 
Paul  journeyed.  When  Ramsay1  began  his  researches  for  the 
reconstruction  of  the  history  and  geography  of  Asia  Minor,  he 
was  confronted  with  the  fact  that  "if  Luke's  narrative  was 
trustworthy,  it  was  for  me  exceptionally  valuable,  as  giving 
evidence  on  a  larger  scale.  There  was  nothing  else  like  it. 
No  other  ancient  traveller  has  left  an  account  of  the  journeys 
which  he  made  across  Asia  Minor;  and  if  the  narrative  of 
Paul's  travels  rests  on  first-class  authority,  it  placed  in  my 
hands  a  document  of  unique  and  exceptional  value  to  guide 
my  investigations."2  With  this  idea  in  mind  Ramsay  set  to 
work  to  test  Luke's  record  in  Acts  from  the  standpoint  of  a 
modern  archaeological  expert.  Ramsay  had  made  Asia  Minor 
under  Roman  rule  his  peculiar  province,  and  by  years  of  travel 
and  research  on  the  ground  had  gained  a  mass  of  fresh  knowl 
edge  possessed  by  no  other  living  scholar.  He  endeavored  to 
treat  Luke  as  he  would  Strabo  or  Xenophon:3  "This  prepos 
session,  that  Christian  authors  lie  outside  the  pale  of  real 
literature  and  that  early  Christians  were  not  to  be  estimated 
as  men,  has  been  the  enemy  for  me  to  attack  ever  since  I  began 

1  See  his  Historical  Geography  of  Asia  Minor. 

2  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  81.  » Ibid.,  p.  83. 



to  look  into  the  Christian  authors  with  unprejudiced  eyes." 
As  an  instance  of  how  men  allow  prejudice  to  shut  their  eyes 
to  the  truth,  Ramsay1  notes  that  in  Acts  21 : 15  Luke  says 
that  "a  large  party  of  travellers  used  horses,  a  statement  inter 
preted  and  confirmed  by  Chrysostom,"  though,  he  adds,  "it 
has  seemed  almost  sacrilegious  to  some  modern  scholars  to 
suggest  that  Paul  even  made  a  journey  except  on  foot."  Ram 
say2  has  found  about  the  New  Testament  writers  that  "in 
becoming  Christians  those  writers  did  not  cease  to  be  men: 
they  only  gained  that  element  of  thoroughness,  of  sincerity 
and  enthusiasm,  the  want  of  which  is  so  unpleasing  in  later 
classical  literature." 

Luke  has  stood  the  test  with  wonderful  success.  Moffatt3 
speaks  of  "Luke's  remarkable  degree  of  accuracy  in  geographi 
cal,  political,  and  social  data,"  though  he  insists  that  "he  must 
be  judged  by  the  canons  of  his  age,  and  in  the  light  of  his 
opportunities."  Lightfoot,4  Vigoroux5  and  Ramsay6  have  all 
borne  testimony  to  the  value  of  Luke  in  these  respects.  Head- 
lam7  observes  that  "  a  great  test  of  the  accuracy  of  the  writer 
in  the  last  twelve  chapters  is  given  by  the  evidence  from  arche 
ology."  The  opportunity  for  pitfalls  is  here  very  great.  Har- 
nack8  devotes  a  whole  chapter  to  "Lands,  Nations,  Cities,  and 
Houses"  in  the  Acts.  One  of  Ramsay's  most  helpful  volumes 
is  his  Cities  of  St.  Paul.  The  inscriptions  have  been  found  of 
great  value  in  their  sidelights  on  Luke's  story.  One  of  the 
most  modern  ideas  is  to  note  the  influence  of  geography  upon 
the  life  of  a  people,  as  in  Palestine,  Egypt,  Greece  and  Asia 
Minor.  We  see  it  to-day  in  America  and  in  Europe.  The 
point  of  it  all  is  that  Luke  was  in  the  atmosphere  of  the  first 
century  himself,  else  he  could  not  have  stepped  so  securely 
in  the  mass  and  maze  of  shifting  political  scenes. 
•  2.  Roman  Provinces. — Luke  wrote  of  the  Roman  world  and 
in  the  Roman  world,  but  "Luke  is  throughout  his  work  a 
Greek,  never  a  Roman,"  and  "  speaks  of  things  Roman  as  they 

1  Ibid.  2  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  176. 

3  Introduction  to  the  Lit.  of  N.  T.,  p.  304. 

4  Essays  on  Supernatural  Religion,  pp.  291-305. 

6  Le  nouveau  Testament,  1889,  et  les  decouvertes  archceologigues  modernes, 

6  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  chaps.  II-VIII. 

7  Hastings's  D.  B.  ("Acts"). 

8  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  chap.  II. 


appeared  to  a  Greek." 1  He  may  have  been  a  Roman  citizen, 
but  his  outlook  was  that  of  a  Greek.  "To  Luke  the  great 
antithesis — Gentile  and  Jew — quite  obliterated  the  lesser  dis 
tinction  between  Roman  citizen  and  Roman  provincial,  when 
the  provincial  was  a  Greek."2  Luke  "regularly  uses  the  pop 
ular  phraseology,  and  not  the  strictly  and  technically  accurate 
terms  for  Roman  things,"  but  all  the  same  "he  is  never  guilty 
of  the  blunders  that  puzzle  the  epigraphist  in  Asian  or  Gala- 
tian  inscriptions."  All  the  more  surprising,  therefore,  is  the 
minute  accuracy  of  Luke  in  the  matter  of  the  Roman  prov 
inces.  In  the  Roman  Empire  there  were  provinces  and  vassal 
kingdoms.  There  were  constant  changes,  as  can  be  seen  in 
Palestine,  which  was  a  vassal  kingdom  under  Herod  the  Great. 
On  his  death,  B.  C.  4,  it  was  divided  into  several  tetrarchies 
(Luke  3:1)  or  petty  provinces  (Herod  Antipas,  tetrarch  of 
Galilee  and  Samaria;  Herod  Philip,  tetrarch  of  Iturea  and 
Trachonitis;  and  Archelaus,  ethnarch  of  Judea  and  Samaria, 
with  hopes  of  a  kingship).  But  Archelaus  lost  his  rule  in 
A.  D.  6,  and  a  Roman  procurator  (cf.  Pontius  Pilate)  ruled 
over  the  secondary  province  of  Judea  (and  Samaria).  But 
from  A.  D.  41-44  Herod  Agrippa  I  was  king  of  all  Palestine, 
when  Roman  procurators  come  back,  with  headquarters  in 
Csesarea,  like  Felix  and  Festus,  termed  "the  governor"  by 
Luke  (Acts  24:1,  27).  The  temporary  reign  of  Herod 
Agrippa  I  over  Judea  explains  how  he  was  able  to  compass 
the  death  of  James  the  brother  of  John  (Acts  12 : 1  f.)  and  to 
put  Peter  in  prison  (12 : 3  ff.).  He  clearly  deserved  the  fate 
that  befell  him  (12 : 20-23).  Judea  was  rather  a  sort  of  client- 
state  than  a  full  province.  It  was  under  the  supervision  of 
the  province  of  Syria  and  Cilicia  and  Phoenicia.  The  imperial 
provinces  embraced  about  three-fourths  of  the  empire.  The 
proprsetors  held  office  indefinitely  while  proconsuls  were  chosen 

Maclean  observes  that  it  is  a  good  test  of  accuracy  in  a 
writer  in  the  first  century  A.  D.  to  examine  whether  he  names 
the  Roman  governors  rightly.  There  were  two  kinds  of  prov 
inces  in  the  empire:  the  senatorial  and  the  imperial.  The 
senatorial  provinces  were  under  the  control  of  the  senate,  and 
the  governor  was  called  proconsul.3  The  emperor  governed 

1  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  Born  at  Bethkhem  ?,  p.  52. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  53.  s  'Av6uTOXTO<;. 


the  imperial  provinces  and  the  governor  was  termed  proprae 
tor.1  Luke  mentions  six  senatorial  provinces:  Achaia  (Acts 
18:12;  19:21,  etc.),  Asia  (2:9;  19:10,26,  etc.),  Crete  and 
Cyrene  (2:10,11;  27:7,  21,  etc.),  Cyprus  (4:36;  13:4,  8, 
etc.),  Bithynia  and  Pontus  (2:9;  16:7,  etc.),  Macedonia 
(16 : 10,  11,  etc.).  So  Luke  rightly  calls  Gallio  proconsul  in 
Acts  18 : 12.  Achaia  had  been  joined  to  Macedonia  and  made 
imperial  in  A.  D.  15,  but  in  A.  D.  44  it  was  again  senatorial. 
So  Luke  is  right.  It  was  once  claimed  that  Luke  blundered 
in  calling  Sergius  Paulus  "proconsul"  (Acts  13:8,  12)  instead 
of  "propraetor,"  on  the  ground  that  Cyprus  was  an  imperial 
province.  So  it  was  once,  but  at  this  time  it  was  a  senatorial 
province,  though  soon  afterward  imperial  again.  But  General 
Cesnola2  has  discovered  an  inscription  on  the  north  coast  of 
Cyprus  which  is  dated  "in  the  proconsulship  of  Paulus," 
clearly  the  Sergius  Paulus  of  Acts  13 : 8,  12.  Ramsay3  makes 
this  year  A.  D.  47.  Once  more  Luke  is  vindicated  by  the 

The  six  imperial  provinces  mentioned  by  Luke  are  Cappa- 
docia  (Acts  2:9),  Cilicia  and  Syria  and  Phoenicia  (Acts  15 : 41, 
etc.),  Egypt  with  title  of  prefect  for  governor  (2 : 10),  Galatia 
on  the  south  Galatian  theory  (16:6;  18:23),  Lycia  (27:5), 
Pamphylia  (2 : 10;  13 : 13;  27  :  5,  etc.).  There  is,  besides,  the 
subordinate  province  of  Judea,  with  its  procurator  subject  to 
the  propraetor  in  Syria. 

There  was  constant  interchange  of  provinces  between  the 
emperor  and  the  senate,  but  Luke  ploughs  his  way  safely 

3.  Ethnographic  Terminology. — The  Romans  did  not  destroy 
the  life  of  the  peoples  whom  they  conquered.  They  let  the 
various  nations  keep  up  their  customs  and  languages.  In  a 
broad  and  general  way  they  allowed  many  religions  to  be 
observed,  though  all  had  to  be  licensed  (religio  licitd)  and 
legalized.  The  prevalence  of  the  emperor-cult  led  to  severe 
persecution  of  Christianity  when  it  came  to  be  differentiated 
from  Judaism.  But  the  Roman  provinces  and  kingdoms  were 
administrative  for  convenience  and  efficiency.  They  were  not 
drawn  upon  national  and  racial  lines.  But  the  old  lines  of 

1  See  Mommsen,  The  Provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire. 
2Cf.  Hogarth,  Devia  Cypria,  p.  114. 
3  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  157, 


race  and  national  cleavage  remained.  The  old  languages  con 
tinued  to  be  spoken  along  with  the  current  Greek  (the  Koine) 
and  the  official  Latin.  Thus  Paul  addressed  the  people  of 
Lystra  in  Greek,  as  usual,  but  the  multitude  spoke  "in  the 
speech  of  Lycaonia"  (Acts  14 : 11).  Ramsay1  thinks  that  "the 
issue  of  events  showed  that  the  Empire  had  made  a  mistake  in 
disregarding  so  completely  the  existing  lines  of  demarcation 
between  tribes  and  races  in  making  its  new  political  provinces. 
For  a  time  it  succeeded  in  establishing  them,  while  the  energy 
of  the  Empire  was  still  fresh,  and  its  forward  movement  con 
tinuous  and  steady.  But  the  differences  of  tribal  and  national 
character  were  too  great  to  be  completely  set  aside;  they 
revived  while  the  energy  of  the  Empire  decayed  during  the 
second  century."  But  in  the  first  century  the  Roman  system 
was  at  its  height. 

The  popular  terminology,  however,  survived  all  the  while. 
There  are  abundant  evidences  of  it  in  Acts,  instances  where 
Luke  uses  popular  names  for  countries  rather  than  official 
names  of  provinces.  Thus  we  find  Pisidia  (Acts  13 : 14), 
Lycaonia  (14 :  6, 11,  etc.),  Phrygia  (16 :  6;  18 :  23)  and  Galatia 
(16 :  6;  18 :  23),  if  north  Galatia  is  meant.  Ramsay2  points 
out  how  in  southern  Galatia  (the  southern  part  of  the  Roman 
province  of  Galatia),  distinct  Regiones*  existed  like  Phrygia, 
Pisidia,  Lycaonia  (as  distinct  from  Lycaonia  Antiochiana  which 
was  ruled  by  King  Antiochus).  Ramsay  insists  on  the  accu 
racy  of  Luke  in  the  description  of  these  various  regions.  In 
any  case  he  preserves  the  old  ethnographic  names.  Ramsay4 
argues  that  Iconium  was  not  a  part  of  Lycaonia,  like  Lystra 
and  Derbe,  though  in  the  province  of  Galatia.  We  are  not 
yet  able  to  trace  every  detail  in  Roman  provincial  history  and 
administration,  but  Luke  is  wholly  in  accord  with  all  known 
facts  in  his  use  of  names  for  the  various  divisions  of  Asia 
Minor  in  the  first  century.  He  sharply  distinguishes  Antioch 
in  Pisidia  from  Antioch  in  Syria. 

4.  Colonies. — Philippi  alone  is  termed  a  colony5  by  Luke 
(Acts  16 : 12),  though  various  other  cities  are  mentioned  that 
were  colonies  at  the  time  of  the  events  narrated  by  Luke,6 

1  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  136.  2  Ibid.,  p.  104. 

3  xwpat.  « Cities  of  St.  Paul,  pp.  350  ff. 

6  xaXwvfoc,  Latin  colonia. 

6Cf.  Souter,  "Colony,"  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Church. 


such  as  Corinth  (since  27  B.  C.),  Lystra  (since  12  B.  C.), 
Pisidian  Antioch  (since  before  27  B.  C.),  Ptolemais  (since 
before  A.  D.  47),  Puteoli  (since  194  B.  C.)>  Syracuse  (since 
21  B.  C.),  Troas  (since  about  20  B.  C.),  eight  with  Philippi. 
It  is  possible  that  Luke  mentions  the  fact  that  Philippi  was  a 
colony  because  of  his  long  residence  there  and  his  natural 
interest  and  pride  in  the  city.  It  used  to  be  said  that  Luke 
had  blundered  badly  in  applying  the  word  "district"1  to  a 
division  of  a  province  like  Macedonia  at  this  tune.  The 
Romans  had  divided  the  province  into  four  districts  B.  C.  167. 
But  an  ancient  Macedonian  coin  uses  the  word  in  this  sense.2 
At  this  time  Amphipolis  claimed  the  title  of  first  city  of  the 
district  in  which  Philippi  was.  But  Philippi  had  its  own  pride 
in  the  matter  and  would  not  yield  the  title  to  its  rival  city. 
Lightfoot  (in  loco)  suggests  that  by  "first  city  of  the  district" 
Luke  merely  means  geographical  location,  not  importance. 
But  Luke  gives  the  touch  of  life  to  his  narrative  by  this  detail. 

The  Roman  colonies  were  small  editions  of  Rome  itself. 
Normally  some  three  hundred  Romans  went  out  to  establish 
the  colony.  These  men  remained  Roman  citizens,  "a  portion 
of  Rome  itself  planted  amidst  a  community  not  itself  possessed 
of  Roman  citizenship"  (Souter).  These  cities  were  advance- 
guards  of  the  mother  city.  They  were  military  outposts  to 
hold  in  subjection  the  surrounding  country.  The  various  col 
onies  were  connected  by  military  roads  with  each  other  and 
with  Rome  itself.  At  first  the  men  were  citizen-soldiers,  but 
in  time  of  peace  the  military  aspect  was  not  so  prominent. 
"  It  was  an  honor  for  a  provincial  city  to  be  made  into  a  colonia, 
because  this  was  proof  that  it  was  of  special  importance,  spe 
cially  dear  to  the  Emperor,  and  worthy  to  be  the  residence  of 
Roman  citizens,  who  were  the  aristocracy  of  the  provincial 
towns  in  which  they  lived"  (Souter).  The  Greeks  knew  how 
to  colonize  with  skill.  The  Romans  followed  a  different  plan, 
but  with  success.  The  British  have  learned  how  to  plant 
colonies  and  to  give  them  freedom  that  stood  the  strain  of  the 
World  War. 

There  were  other  cities  that  had  special  privileges.  These 
free  cities,  as  they  were  called,  had  self-government  within  the 
Roman  province -where  they  were.  Luke  mentions  Athens, 
Ephesus,  Thessalonica  and  Tarsus.  The  Romans  did  not 
2  Cf .  Ramsay,  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  158. 


give  a  provincial  constitution  to  a  country  without  a  certain 
amount  of  civilization.  The  free  cities  and  the  colonies  were 
points  of  power.  Paul  went  to  the  colonies  and  to  the  free 
cities  as  centres  of  influence.  The  colonies  held  themselves 
above  the  other  cities. 

5.  Roman  Citizenship. — One  could  be  a  citizen  of  a  free  city 
like  Tarsus  and  not  be  a  Roman  citizen.  Paul  was  proud  of 
his  native  city  and  had  a  right  to  be:  "I  am  a  Jew,  of  Tarsus 
in  Cilicia,  a  citizen  of  no  mean  city"  (Acts  21 : 39).  Ramsay1 
has  shown  what  it  meant  to  Paul  to  live  as  a  boy  in  this  great 
educational  centre,  this  Greek  city  in  the  Orient.  Those  who 
were  not  bom  Roman  citizens  could  acquire  it  by  purchasers 
Claudius  Lysias  did  (Acts  22 : 28),  sometimes  through  infamous 
court  favorites.  Roman  citizenship  was  sometimes  bestowed 
as  a  reward  for  services  to  the  state,  as  may  have  been  the  case 
with  Paul's  father  or  grandfather,  according  to  Maclean's 
conjecture.2  Proud  as  Paul  was  of  being  a  citizen  of  Tarsus, 
he  was  much  more  so  of  his  Roman  citizenship.  With  simple 
dignity  he  said  to  Claudius  Lysias:  "But  I  am  a  Roman  born" 
(Acts  22 : 28).  Luke  takes  careful  note  of  Paul's  pride  in  and 
use  of  his  Roman  citizenship.  Souter3  observes  that  the  an 
cient  Greeks  and  Romans  had  a  higher  conception  of  citizen 
ship  than  we  have  to-day:  "To  the  ancient  member  of  a  polls 
or  civitas  citizenship  was  life  and  life  was  citizenship."  When 
Paul  spoke  to  the  Sanhedrin  in  Acts  23 : 1,  "Brethren,  I  have 
lived  before  God  in  all  good  conscience  until  this  day,"  he  used 
the  word  to  live  as  a  citizen.4  Paul  made  use  of  his  rights  as 
a  Roman  citizen  to  carry  on  his  work  of  evangelization.  "It 
was  no  doubt  this  citizenship  which  gave  Paul  such  an  advan 
tage  as  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  and  which  inspired  him 
with  the  great  plan  of  utilizing  the  civilization  of  the  Roman 
state  to  spread  the  gospel  along  the  lines  of  communication."  5 

It  has  been  objected  that  Paul  did  not  take  advantage  of 
his  citizenship  in  time  to  prevent  the  scourging  in  Philippi 
without  a  fair  trial.  But  it  is  doubtful  if  the  magistrates 
allowed  Paul  to  say  aught  in  reply  to  the  claptrap  of  the  mas 
ter  of  the  girl  whom  Paul  had  freed  (Acts  16 : 21-23).  It  looks 

1  Cities  of  St.  Paul,  part  II. 

2  One  Vol.  Hastings 's  D.  B.  ("  Paul "). 

3  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Church  ("Citizenship"). 

4  ireicoMceuncK.  6  Maclean,  ibid. 


as  if  the  mob  made  such  a  clamor  that  Paul  had  no  chance  to 
defend  himself.  But  next  morning,  when  the  magistrates 
sent  word  for  Paul  and  Silas  to  be  released,  Paul  had  his  oppor 
tunity:  "They  have  beaten  us  publicly,  uncondemned,  men 
that  are  Romans,  and  have  cast  us  into  prison;  and  do  they 
now  cast  us  out  privily?  Nay  verily;  but  let  them  come  them 
selves  and  bring  us  out"  (16  :  37).  His  words  had  the  desired 
effect,  for  the  magistrates  "feared  when  they  heard  that  they 
were  Romans."  Silas  was  evidently  a  Roman  citizen  also. 
In  Philippi  Roman  citizenship  was  properly  appreciated  and 
Paul  won  his  freedom  and  an  apology.  The  rights  of  Roman 
citizenship  included  exemption  from  degrading  punishment, 
like  scourging  and  crucifixion,  the  right  to  a  fair  trial,  the  right 
of  appeal  to  the  Emperor  for  sentence  after  trial  and  in  the 
case  of  capital  offense  the  right  of  appeal  to  Caesar  before  trial. 
Paul  was  wholly  within  his  rights,  therefore,  when  he  grew 
weary  of  the  insincerity  of  Festus  after  the  long  delays  of 
Felix  and  said:  "I  appeal  to  Caesar"  (25:  11).  Festus  recog 
nized  Paul's  right  in  the  matter  (25  :  12),  though  he  felt  embar 
rassed  by  the  lack  of  definite  charges  against  Paul  (25  :  27). 
There  was  grim  humor  in  Agrippa's  conclusion:  "This  man 
might  have  been  set  at  liberty  if  he  had  not  appealed  unto 
Caesar"  (26  :  32).  He  could  have  been  set  at  liberty  any  time 
for  more  than  two  years  if  Felix  and  Festus  had  really  wished 
to  do  what  they  knew  was  right  in  the  case. 

Paul  was  a  citizen  of  heaven  as  well  as  of  Tarsus  and  of 
Rome.  He  employs  the  word  for  the  Christian  life:  "Only  let 
your  manner  of  life1  be  worthy  of  the  gospel  of  Christ"  (Phil. 
1  :  27).  In  Phil.  3  :  20  2  Paul  says:  "For  our  citizenship  is  in 
heaven"  (Moffatt  has  it:  "For  we  are  a  colony  of  heaven"). 

Luke  was  a  Greek  and  may  himself  have  been  a  Roman 
citizen.  At  any  rate,  he  alone  employs  the  word  "citizen"3 
in  the  Gospel:  "He  went  and  joined  himself  to  one  of  the  citi 
zens  of  that  country"  (Luke  15:  15);  "But  his  citizens  hated 
him"  (19:14). 

6.  Local  Color.  —  There  are  many  touches  of  local  color  in 
Luke's  writings,  particularly  the  Acts,  that  are  of  great  inter 
est.  In  some  of  these  cases  difficulties  once  existed  that  dis- 

See  my  book  on  The  New  Citizenship. 
2  In  P.  Held.  6  (4  A.  D.)  we  find:  T^JV  •jcoXtTe(a[v  o]ou  evv  o6pavq>. 


coveries  have  removed.  In  Acts  7 : 16  Luke  quotes  Stephen 
as  saying  that  Abraham  bought  the  burial-place  in  Shechem. 
According  to  Gen.  23 : 16  Abraham  purchased  the  cave  of 
Machpelah  from  Ephron  the  Hittite  in  Hebron.  Jacob  bought 
a  field  of  the  sons  of  Hamor  in  Shechem  (Gen.  33 : 19;  Joshua 
24:32).  There  were  two  purchases  and  Knowling  (in  loco) 
suggests  that,  since  Shechem  was  the  earliest  settlement  of 
Abraham,  and  he  set  up  an  altar  there,  he  probably  bought  a 
piece  of  land  there  also.  But  even  so  Jacob  was  buried  in  the 
cave  of  Machpelah  according  to  Gen.  1 : 13,  while  Joseph  was 
buried  in  Shechem  (Joshua  24 :  32).  There  were  two  burials, 
also.  Jerome  says  that  the  tombs  of  the  Patriarchs  were 
shown  at  Shechem.  It  must  be  admitted  that  no  clear  solu 
tion  of  this  matter  has  yet  been  found.  If  it  is  an  error,  it 
may  belong  to  Stephen  or  to  Luke.  Moffatt1  observes  that 
Luke  was  not  as  much  at  home  in  the  topography  of  Palestine 
as  of  Asia  Minor. 

In  Pisidian  Antioch  Luke  speaks  of  "the  first  men  of  the 
city"  as  a  title.  These  were  the  Duumviri  and  the  "First 
Ten."  Greek  cities  in  the  East  had  a  board  of  magistrates 
with  this  title.  Luke  uses  the  correct  title  for  these  officers, 
as  he  does  in  Acts  28 : 7,  where  he  calls  Publius  "  the  First 
Man"  of  the  island  of  Malta.  A  Latin  inscription  and  a 
Greek  inscription  both  apply  the  same  title  to  two  officers  of 
Malta.  Knowling  (in  loco)  and  Ramsay2  argue  that  it  is  not 
a  mere  honorary  appellation,  but  a  technical  official  title  in 
the  island. 

In  Acts  14 : 8-18  Luke  gives  a  vivid  picture  of  heathen 
superstition  in  Lystra  and  of  their  notion  that  Barnabas  and 
Paul  were  Jupiter  and  Mercury  (Zeus  and  Hermes).  Ovid 
has  a  story  of  the  visit  of  these  two  gods  to  two  Phrygian 
peasants,  Baucis  and  Philemon.  The  Greeks  looked  on 
strangers  as  possible  gods  in  human  form.  A  coin  of  Lystra 
has  a  picture  of  a  priest  leading  two  oxen  to  sacrifice  just  as 
they  were  proceeding  to  offer  them  for  Paul  and  Barnabas. 
The  whole  story  is  true  to  life  as  we  now  know  it  was  lived  in 
Lystra.  Ramsay3  says  that  excavation  at  Lystra  is  greatly 
needed  and  probably  more  discoveries  will  be  made  here. 

In  Philippi  Luke  (Acts  16:20)  mentions  both  "praetors"4 

1  Intr.  to  Lit.  of  N.  T.,  p.  305.  2  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  343. 

3  Cities  of  St.  Paul,  p.  413  * 


and  "lictors,"1  the  correct  technical  titles  in  a  colony  and  as 
sumed  by  the  magistrates  in  Philippi. 

In  Thessalonica,  however,  Luke  (Acts  17  :  6)  notes  a  curious 
official  title  found  nowhere  else.  The  rulers  of  the  city  are 
called  politarchs.2  No  classical  author  employs  this  word  for 
the  magistrates  of  any  city.  Critics  once  scoffed  at  Luke  for 
his  carelessness  and  ignorance  here.  But  now  seventeen  in 
scriptions  have  been  found  that  use  the  title,  thirteen  of  them 
in  Macedonia  and  five  in  Thessalonica.3  One  of  the  inscrip 
tions  spans  an  arch  in  Thessalonica  and  has  the  title  politarch 
with  the  names  of  some  of  Paul's  converts  there  (Sosipater, 
Gaius,  Secundus).  There  were  usually  five  or  six  politarchs 
at  a  time  in  Thessalonica. 

In  Athens  Luke  not  only  knows  the  Areopagus  (Acts  17  :  34) 
but  he  reproduces  the  local  color  with  such  skill  that  it  is 
charged  that  he  composed  Paul's  address  in  the  classical  at 
mosphere  of  the  Parthenon.  Stoics  and  Epicureans  and  the 
Athenian  curiosity  and  ennui  are  drawn  to  the  life. 

In  Ephesus  the  worship  of  the  temple  of  Diana  is  pictured 
(Acts  19  :  34)  with  the  graphic  portrayal  of  Demetrius  and  his 
labor-union  (craftsmen),  who  are  ready  to  do  his  bidding  when 
self-interest  was  aroused.  The  Asiarchs4  and  the  town  clerk5 
and  the  assembly  6  all  belong  to  Ephesus.  The  Asiarchs  super 
intended  the  worship  of  the  Emperor  in  cities  where  there  was 
a  temple  of  Rome  for  the  emperor-cult.  "Their  friendliness 
to  St.  Paul  is  a  sure  sign  of  an  early  date,  for  the  book  could 
only  have  been  written  while  the  Imperial  policy  was  still 
neutral  to  Christianity."  7  Proconsul  in  19  :  38  is  the  correct 
title  for  this  senatorial  province  of  Asia.  Only  one  ruled  at  a 
time,  however. 

It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  Luke  has  come  out  mag 
nificently  as  the  result  of  archaeological  research.  Ramsay's 
researches  have  proven  that  Luke  in  Acts  reflects  the  nomen 
clature  and  the  geography  of  the  first  century  A.  D.  The  dis- 

3  See  Burton,  American  Journal  of  Theology,  July,  1898,  pp.  59S-632. 

4  'Aac&pxac.    See  Ramsay's  article  in  Hastings's  D.  B.  for  copious  data 
and  bibliography. 

6  YP<w«Te6<;.    See  Moulton  and  Milligan,  Vocabulary  of  the  N.  T.,  for 
numerous  quotations  from  the  papyri  illustrating  this  and  other  uses  of 

6  exxXTjafa  7  Maclean,  One  Vol.  Hastings's  D.  B. 


coveries  have  vindicated  him  at  every  turn.  Percy  Gardner1 
rather  condescendingly  admits  that  Luke  "shows,  it  is  true,  a 
good  deal  of  local  and  geographic  knowledge,  to  which  Sir 
W.  M.  Ramsay  has  rightly  called  attention."  In  a  footnote2 
he  adds:  "Of  course,  if  a  writer  is  at  sea  in  his  geographic  and 
local  facts,  it  is  a  proof  of  his  general  untrustworthiness." 
Quite  so.  But  that  is  not  the  case  with  Luke.  It  is  true  that 
Harnack3  wrote:  "St.  Luke  is  an  author  whose  writings  read 
smoothly,  but  one  has  only  to  look  somewhat  more  closely  to 
discover  that  there  is  scarcely  another  writer  in  the  New  Tes 
tament  who  is  so  careless  an  historian  as  he."  That  is  a  care 
less  criticism  that  Harnack  has  not  made  good  in  his  books 
on  the  Lukan  writings.  The  facts  in  this  chapter  favor  the 
view  of  Ramsay  rather  than  that  of  Harnack.  Ramsay  rightly 
criticises  Harnack  for  too  much  verbal  quibbling  over  Luke's 
sources  and  for  not  enough  knowledge  of  the  actual  environ 
ment  in  Asia  Minor  and  in  Europe.  Ramsay  has  appealed  to 
the  inscriptions  from  the  critics.  The  rocks  in  every  instance 
have  taken  the  side  of  Luke. 

1  Cambridge  Biblical  Essays,  p.  391.  *  Ibid. 

3  Luke  the  Physician,  p.  112. 


"An  orator,  one  Tertullus"  (Acts  24  : 1) 

Christianity  had  to  find  its  place  under  Roman  law.  Luke 
seems  well  aware  of  this  problem.1 

1.  Various  Kinds  of  Law  in  the  Roman  Empire. — Luke  was 
not  a  lawyer,  but  he  lived  under  Roman  rule,  and  Roman  law 
•shows  its  hand  toward  Christianity  in  the  Acts.  "The  student 
of  Christian  origins  cannot  neglect  the  influence  which  the  law 
of  the  Roman  Empire  had  on  the  infant  Church." 2  Two  law 
yers  are  mentioned  by  name  in  the  New  Testament,  one  a  pro 
fessional  Roman  pleader  and  probably  a  heathen,  Tertullus 
(Acts  24 : 1),  the  other  a  Christian  worker,  "Zenos  the  lawyer" 
(Titus  3 : 13).  One  must  not  confuse  these  Roman  lawyers 
with  the  lawyers  (or  scribes)  and  doctors  of  the  law  in  the 
Gospels.  The  Jewish  lawyer  was  also  a  theologian,  a  doctor 
of  canon  and  civil  law  (LL.D.).  They  were  ecclesiastical  law 
yers  and  preachers  or  teachers. 

So  in  the  New  Testament  we  see  the  reflection  of  Jewish, 
Greek  and  Roman  law.  And  Greek  law  varied  in  different 
cities  under  local  influences.  Roman  law  appears  in  its  pro 
vincial  aspects  as  well  as  in  its  imperial  forms.  Roman  judi 
cial  procedure  had  a  long  historical  development,  and  was 
finally  codified  (Justinian's  Code)  and  lies  at  the  basis  of  mod 
ern  jurisprudence.  But  the  Ten  Commandments  and  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  have  played  a  powerful  part  in  making 
modern  law  more  than  mere  technicalities.  English  common 
law  is  rooted  in  human  rights,  and  Christ's  demand  for  right 
eousness  dominates  the  upright  judge  to-day.  But  in  the 

Plooij,  of  Leyden,  has  argued  (The  Expositor,  December,  1914,  and 
February,  1917)  that  Luke  wrote  the  Acts,  specifically  as  an  apology  for 
Paul  and  for  Christianity  before  the  Roman  council.  Plooij  goes  so  far 
as  to  call  Luke  juris  studiosus.  M.  Jones  replies  to  Plooij  in  The  Expositor 
for  March,  1915,  but  Plooij  has  made  a  point  that  deserves  consideration. 

2  Maclean,  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Ch.  ("Roman  Law  in  the  N,  T.")- 



first  century  A.  D.  one  met  various  kinds  of  law  and  Chris 
tianity  had  to  square  itself  with  existing  institutions.  Paul 
took  his  stand  squarely  on  the  side  of  law  and  order  and  urged 
"subjection  to  the  higher  powers"  (Romans  13 : 1)  as  in  the 
ory,  at  least,  the  agents  of  God  for  the  preservation  of  order 
and  justice.  He  urged  prayer  for  all  rulers,  "that  we  may 
lead  a  quiet  and  tranquil  life  in  all  godliness  and  gravity"  (I 
Tim.  2:2).* 

In  the  Greek  cities  of  Asia  Minor,  which  in  many  cases  had 
an  excellent  system  of  law  already  in  force,  the  Romans  re 
spected  the  old  law  and  customs  and  did  not  enforce  Roman 
legal  procedure,  just  as  they  did  not  interfere  with  the  Greek 
language,  "reserving  Latin  for  state  occasions"  (Maclean). 

So  in  Heb.  9 : 16  f .  the  will 2  seems  to  be  of  the  Roman  kind, 
like  ours,  which  is  in  effect  only  on  the  death  of  the  testator. 
We  get  our  Old  Testament  and  New  Testament  from  the  Latin 
translation  of  the  Greek  word,  which  also  means  covenant,  as 
in  Gal.  3 : 15,  though  here  the  Greek  idea  of  will  is  possible. 
The  Greek  will,  once  recorded,  was  irrevocable.  With  us,  alas, 
one  never  knows  when  a  will  is  binding,  once  the  lawyers  get 
hold  of  it.  The  best  way  to-day  to  give  money  is  to  give  it 
before  one  dies.  A  man  can  be  his  own  administrator,  as 
Andrew  Carnegie  was.  In  Gal.  4 : 2  the  father  names  the 
date  at  which  the  child  becomes  of  age,  according  to  Greek 
law.  Roman  law  made  the  child  stay  under  a  tutor3  (or 
guardian)  till  fourteen,  and  under  a  curator4  (or  steward)  till 
twenty-five.  Gal.  4  follows  Roman  law  in  respect  of  the 
tutor  and  curator  but  Greek  law  in  the  matter  of  appointing 
the  term  of  their  office.  In  Greek  and  Roman  law  the  mas 
ter's  son  by  a  slave  was  also  slave,  but  free  under  Hebrew  law. 
So  in  Gal.  4 : 21-31  (Isaac  and  Ishmael)  we  see  Greek  and 
Roman  law  interpreted  in  a  way  to  appeal  to  the  Galatians 
who  lived  under  it.  So  Luke  writes  in  a  world  of  complicated 
legal  processes. 

1  See  Ball,  St.  Paul  and  the  Roman  Law  (1901);  Buss,  Roman  Law  and 
History  in  the  N.  T.  (1901);  Hicks,  Traces  oj  Greek  Philosophy  and  Roman 
Law  in  the  N.  T.  (1896);  Ramsay,  The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire  (1893). 

2  Sca0ifjxTQ.    Same  word  ^for  will  and  covenant.     Moulton  and  Milligan 
(Vocabulary,  p.  1480)  say:  "In  papyri  and  inscrr.  the  word  means  testa 
ment,  will,  with  absolute  unanimity  and  such  frequency  that  illustration 
is  superfluous." 

3  lictTpdrcouq  (Gal.  4:2).  « ofxov6txou<;  (Gal.  4:2). 


In  Gal.  3 : 23-25  the  picture  of  the  law  (Jewish  law)  as  the 
child-guardian  or  pedagogue1  before  the  age  of  faith  is  after 
the  Greek,  not  the  Roman  idea  of  guardian.  Ramsay2  calls  it 
"that  characteristic  Greek  institution"  which  the  Galatians 
considered  "salutary  and  good."  "Their  duty  was  not  to 
teach  any  child  under  their  charge,  but  simply  to  guard  him." 3 
The  Roman  pedagogue  was  not  so  highly  esteemed,  and  had 
no  regard  to  the  moral  side  of  the  child's  life,  though  he  also 
accompanied  the  child  to  school,  as  did  the  Greek  pedagogue. 
The  Roman  failure  with  the  education  of  the  children,  Ram 
say  thinks,  led  to  the  disintegration  of  the  moral  fibre  and  of 
the  national  life.  Luke,  like  Paul,  wrote  in  a  world  where  the 
Graeco-Roman  civilization  flourished.  He  makes  his  way 

2.  Law  in  the  Colonies. — Here  Latin  was  used  in  municipal 
deeds  and  in  trials,  though  Greek  would  usually  be  the  language 
of  commerce  and  every-day  life.  There  was  no  senate4  in  the 
colonies,  but  councils  (decuriones)5  and  Roman  names  for  the 
officers  as  magistrates6  (praetor  es)  in  Acts  16 :  20,  22,  35  f.,  and 
Serjeants7  (lictors)  at  Philippi.  The  business  interests  of 
Philippi  used  Roman  legal  procedure  against  Paul.  The  forms 
of  Roman  law  are  insisted  upon  by  the  masters  of  the  poor 
girl  (16 : 21),  while  Paul  pointedly  shows  the  various  items  in 
the  Roman  law  that  the  magistrates  or  rulers  (archons)  (16 : 19) 
had  violated  (16 :  37).  Paul  does  not  mean  that  it  would  have 
been  proper  to  flog  them  if  they  had  been  condemned.  That 
was  simply  another  item  in  their  mistreatment  of  Roman  citi 
zens.  Luke  has  not  misunderstood  Roman  law  in  his  report 
here.  He  aptly  pictures  the  fear  of  the  Roman  magistrates 
because  of  their  cowardice  before  the  business  men  and  the 

In  Antioch  of  Pisidia,  another  colony,  Paul  left  before  he 
faced  the  civil  authorities,  "the  chief  men  of  the  city"8  (Acts 
13 :  50),  the  technical  title  for  the  city  officials  here.  The  Jews, 
especially  the  rabbis,  "were  filled  with  jealousy"  (13  :  45),  and 
"urged  on  the  devout  women  of  honorable  estate"  (13:50), 
probably  Gentile  women  of  the  aristocracy  who  had  become 

1  xatSa-ro)Y6?.  z  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  p.  382. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  383.  4  pouX^j. 

6  Ramsay,  Galatians,  pp.  117,  182. 

6  7  8  TO&? 


attendants  at  the  synagogue,  "God-fearers"  like  Cornelius  in 
Csesarea  (Acts  10 : 1  f.).  These  women  were  open  to  the  influ 
ence  of  the  rabbis  and  were  able  to  reach  the  city  officials. 
The  combination  of  religious  jealousy,  social  prestige  and 
civil  power  was  too  great  for  Paul  and  Barnabas.  Rackham1 
notes  that  the  word  "honorable"  is  common  in  the  inscrip 
tions  at  Antioch.  The  persecution  here  was  effective,  appar 
ently  without  any  legal  process.  The  civil  authorities  were 
reached  by  private  influence  without  a  public  arraignment, 
but  the  pressure  was  too  great  to  resist.  Public  trial  would 
have  come  if  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  remained.  The  rabbis 
would  have  found  some  charge  for  the  arrest  and  trial  of  the 
preachers,  who  had  become  entirely  too  popular.  Roman  law 
did  not  forbid  this  recourse  to  personal  spleen.  Modern  in 
quisitors  have  often  followed  suit  as  they  gained  the  ear  of  the 
men  at  the  helm  of  city  and  state. 

Lystra  was  another  colony  where  Paul  and  Barnabas  had 
trouble  at  the  hands  of  the  set  of  jealous  Jews  who  had  so 
successfully  driven  them  out  of  Antioch  and  out  of  Iconium. 
"But  there  came  Jews  thither  from  Antioch  and  Iconium" 
(Acts  14:19).  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  remained  a  "long 
time"  (14:  3)  in  Iconium  (not  yet  a  colony,  not  till  Hadrian's 
tune2),  till  the  Jews  had  stirred  the  Gentile  multitude  against 
them  and  there  came  an  actual  "onset3  both  of  the  Gentiles 
and  the  Jews  with  their  rulers,  to  treat  them  shamefully  and 
to  stone  them"  (14: 5).  Paul  and  Barnabas  fled  just  in  time 
to  escape  a  lynching  at  the  hands  of  a  mob  led  by  "the  rulers" 
(archons)  of  the  city.  But  in  Lystra  the  Jews  waited  till  Paul 
and  Barnabas  had  become  the  heroes  of  the  hour  by  reason 
of  healing  the  crippled  man.  They  had  with  difficulty  dis 
suaded  the  populace  in  Lystra  from  offering  sacrifice  to  them 
as  Jupiter  and  Mercury  (14 :  8-18).  And  now  the  fickle  crowd, 
like  a  pack  of  wolves,  led  by  the  same  jealous  rabbis,  turned 
on  Paul  and  stoned  him  and  dragged  him  out  of  the  city,  sup 
posing  that  he  was  dead  (14:19).  This  time  they  thought 
that  they  had  put  the  pestilent  preacher  out  of  their  way  for 
good  and  all.  Their  wrath  had  grown  from  Antioch  to  Ico 
nium  and  now  to  Lystra.  Here  it  was  a  real  lynching  party 
and  not  a  near  one,  as  in  Iconium.  The  city  officials  do  not 

1  Acts,  p.  222.  2  Ramsay,  Galatians,  pp.  123,  218. 

3ip[A7j,  a  "rush"  like  a  modern  football  team. 


here  appear  in  the  matter  at  all.  There  was  no  legal  process. 
The  Jews  made  their  appeal  directly  to  the  mob  and  trusted 
to  the  connivance  of  the  city  authorities  whom  they  had 
reached  by  private  appeal  in  Antioch  and  by  public  demon 
stration  in  Iconium.  They  were  apparently  safe  in  their  judg 
ment.  If  one  wonders  how  a  lynching  like  this  could  have 
taken  place  in  a  Roman  colony  under  Roman  law,  let  him 
recall  recent  occurrences  in  the  United  States,  not  alone  in  the 
South,  where  race  prejudice  has  long  existed,  but  in  Washing 
ton,  in  Chicago,  in  Omaha,  in  East  St.  Louis,  in  Springfield, 
Ohio,  and  in  Springfield,  Illinois,  the  home  of  Abraham  Lin 
coln.  The  appeal  to  the  mob  is  anarchy  and  Bolshevism.  It 
is  always  possible,  even  in  enlightened  communities,  but  it 
never  settles  anything.  It  always  inflames  men's  passions 
and  whets  the  appetite  for  blood.  Paul  himself  knew  only 
too  well  what  it  was  to  arouse  popular  prejudice  against  the, 
followers  of  Christ.  Now  a  small  circle  of  the  faithful,  prob 
ably  Timothy  among  them,  gathered  round  his  dead  body,  as 
they  thought,  when  he  rose  up  to  their  joy  (14 : 20),  but  he 
did  not  tarry  long  in  Lystra.  He  knew  when  to  leave. 

At  Corinth,  another  colony,  Paul  was  arraigned  by  the 
jealous  rabbis  again  after  Crispus,  a  ruler  of  the  synagogue, 
had  gone  over  to  Paul's  side  (18:8).  The  present  ruler  of 
the  synagogue,  Sosthenes,  took  advantage  of  the  arrival  of  a 
new  proconsul,  Gallic,  to  bring  Paul  into  court  for  violating 
Roman  law:  "This  man  persuades  men  to  worship  God  con 
trary  to  law"  (18 : 13).  The  Roman  law  was  strict  about  the 
introduction  of  new  religions,  strict  when  the  Romans  cared 
to  be.  Judaism  was  a  legalized  religion  (religio  licita),  hoary 
with  age  and  allowed  by  Roman  law,  though  the  Romans,  like 
all  Gentiles,  despised  the  Jews.  Mithraism  and  Isisism  were 
new  religions  and  were  winked  at  by  Roman  officials.  Chris 
tianity  had  no  legal  standing  before  Roman  law.  Technically 
it  was  unlawful  (religio  illicita)  save  as  it  passed  as  a  form  or 
sect  of  Judaism.  Paul,  as  we  know,  claimed  that  Christianity 
was  the  real  Judaism  of  the  prophets  (Gal.  3;  Romans  9-11): 
"After  the  Way  which  they  call  a  sect,  so  serve  I  the  God  of 
our  fathers"  (Acts  24: 14).  The  Jews  before  Gallio  mean  for 
him  to  understand  that  Paul  has  violated  Roman  law,  but 
their  charges  made  it  plain  to  him  that  Christianity  which 
Paul  preached  was  really  a  form  of  Judaism  and  so  not  illegal. 


They  failed  to  make  a  case  against  Paul  in  Gallio's  interpreta 
tion  of  Roman  law.  He  ruled  that  the  dispute  was  one  be 
tween  Jews  on  questions  of  Jewish  theology,  and  hence  not  a 
case  in  Roman  law  at  all.  He  would  not  allow  Paul  to  speak, 
but  threw  the  case  out  of  court  with  the  famous  words:  "If 
indeed  it  were  a  matter  of  wrong  or  of  wicked  villainy,  O  ye 
Jews,  reason  would  that  I  should  bear  with  you:  but  if  they 
are  questions  about  words  and  names  and  your  own  law,  look 
to  it  yourselves;  I  am  not  minded  to  be  a  judge  of  these  mat 
ters"  (18:14f.).  The  decision  was  a  boomerang.  For  the 
moment,  and  in  the  province  of  Achaia,  Christianity  was 
given  a  legal  standing  before  Roman  law  as  a  religio  licita  and 
as  a  form  of  Judaism.  The  rage  of  the  Jews  was  tremendous. 
They  laid  hold  on  their  own  leader,  Sosthenes,  and  beat  him 
right  before  the  judgment-seat,  but  "Gallic  cared  for  none  of 
these  things"  (18:17).  He  had  a  blind  eye  for  the  poetic 
justice  that  came  to  the  jealous  Sosthenes.  Gallio  was  a 
brother  of  Seneca  and  was  apparently  a  man  of  intelligence 
and  with  a  sense  of  justice,  a  Roman  official  of  the  higher  type, 
quite  other  from  the  kind  seen  in  Palestine  in  the  cases  of  Pilate, 
Felix  and  Festus.  There  were  Roman  governors  like  Gallio. 
The  administration  of  Roman  law  depended,  after  all,  upon 
the  character  of  the  officer,  as,  in  truth,  is  true  of  all  law  ev 

3.  Law  in  the  Free  Cities. — We  have  examples  in  the  Acts  of 
legal  processes  in  such  free  cities  as  Athens,  Ephesus  and 

In  Thessalonica  there  was  probably  a  senate  and  an  assem 
bly.  Certainly  they  had  politarchs,  "rulers  of  the  city" 
(Acts  17:6),  as  the  inscriptions  prove.  In  Thessalonica  a 
great  multitude  of  the  devout  Greeks  or  God-fearers,  who  had 
been  attending  the  synagogue  services,  were  converted  by 
Paul's  preaching  as  well  as  a  large  number  of  the  chief  women 
(17  :  4).  Here  Paul  had  a  large  body  of  aristocratic  women  on 
his  side,  in  contrast  with  the  situation  in  Antioch  in  Pisidia, 
where  they  were  lined  up  against  him.  Here  the  jealous  Jew 
ish  leaders  make  their  first  appeal  to  the  rabble,  "certain  vile 
fellows  of  the  rabble"  *  (17 : 5),  certain  evil  men  of  the  crowd 

1  T&V  dyopafav  ocvSpaq  -rtvtig  xovrjpo6<;.  Lake  (Earlier  Epistles  of  Paul,  p. 
69,  n.  1)  takes  dtfopatav  here  to  be  "agitators"  because  of  Plutarch,  JEmil- 
ius  Paulus,  38,  dtvOpwicou?  <£ysvvst<;  xort  SeSouXeuxdrat;,  dc 


in  the  market-place.  The  life  of  a  Greek  city  centred  in  the 
agora  or  market-place.  Here  the  idlers  were  found  very  much 
as  professional  jurors  hang  around  the  court-house  in  our 
modern  cities.  Even  some  of  the  Thessalonian  converts  showed 
a  reluctance  to  work  (II  Thess.  3  :  10).  So  the  Jewish  rabbis 
got  the  ear  (probably  for  pay  or  by  appeal  to  prejudice)  of 
these  "bums,"  who  were  ready  for  any  enterprise  or  excite 
ment.  They  deliberately  undertook  to  set  the  city  in  an  up 
roar.  It  was  a  mob  made  to  order  that  clamored  at  the 
door  of  Jason's  house  for  Paul  and  Silas.  So  failing  to  find 
them,  they  dragged  Jason  before  the  politarchs  and  accused 
him  of  entertaining  Paul  and  Silas,  "these  that  have  turned 
the  world  upside  down."1  Certainly  this  was  a  tribute  to 
Paul  and  Silas,  though,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  rabbis  and 
their  confederates  from  the  agora  had  set  the  city  by  the  ears. 
Now  the  Jews  appeal  to  Roman  law,  as  the  Sanhedrin  posed 
as  friends  of  Caesar  when  Pilate  weakened  once  more  (John 
19:12,  15):  "And  these  all  act  contrary  to  the  decrees  of 
Caesar,  saying  that  there  is  another  king,  one  Jesus"  (Acts 
17:7).  The  Jews  in  Thessalonica,  as  the  Jews  before  Pilate, 
knew  that  Paul  did  not  preach  Jesus  as  a  political  king  or 
emperor2  in  opposition  to  Caesar,  but  they  wished  the  politarchs 
to  think  so.  The  crime  of  which  they  accuse  Jason  and  Paul 
and  Silas  is  high  treason,  the  very  charge  placed  against  Jesus 
(Luke  23  :  2).  The  charge  of  treason  "cast  into  a  panic  both 
the  politarchs  and  the  crowd."3  So  Jason  was  compelled  to 
give  security4  for  good  behavior  against  treason  (17  :  9),  pay 
ing  money  like  a  bond  or  bail.  Thus  the  politarchs  saved 
their  face  in  the  presence  of  this  charge  of  a  revolution.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  in  writing  to  the  Thessalonians  Paul 
describes  the  "man  of  sin,"  "the  son  of  perdition,  he  that 
opposeth  and  exalteth  himself  against  all  that  is  called  God  or 
that  is  worshipped;  so  that  he  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God, 
setting  himself  forth  as  God"  (II  Thess.  2  :  3  f.).  "Remember 

1  ol  T^V  ofxoutxsvrjv  dtvacjTaT&cjavTe*;.     Used  in  the  papyri  for  driving  one  out 
of  hearth  and  home,  B.  G.  U.  1179,  20  (A.  D.  41).    So  of  upsetting  one,  P. 
Oxy.,  119,  10  (A.  D.2-3). 

2  The  word  ^actXs6<;  was  applied  to  the  Emperor. 

3  Rackham,  in  loco. 

4  Xa^vreq  T*>  bwtv6v.    Cf  .  Mark  15  :  15.     In  P.  Oxy.,  294,  23  (A.  D.  22),  we 
have  Bo[0v]at  elxav6v  for  "give  security"  till  the  inquiry  or  trial,  a  case  pre 
cisely  in  point. 


ye  not,  that,  when  I  was  yet  with  you,  I  told  you  these  things  ?  " 
(2:5).  Evidently,  Paul,  while  in  Thessalonica,  had  been 
stirred  by  the  worship  of  the  Roman  Emperor  and  may  have 
employed  language  that  gave  some  color  to  the  specious  charge 
of  his  enemies.  Here  in  Thessalonica  Paul  began  to  face  the 
inevitable  conflict  between  Christ  and  Caesar.  The  shadow 
of  Rome  was  cast  upon  the  Cross.  So  Paul  and  Silas  were 
"immediately"  sent  away  by  the  brethren  to  Beroea  (Acts 
17 : 10).  It  was  a  serious  moment  for  Paul.  When  in  Bercea 
the  same  Jews  came  to  attack  Paul,  "then  immediately  the 
brethren  sent  forth  Paul  to  go  as  far  as  the  sea"  (17:14). 
The  haste  in  both  instances  suggests  that  Paul's  zeal  and  ear 
nestness  against  emperor-worship  had  made  it  inexpedient 
for  him  to  tarry. 

In  Athens  Paul  was  not  put  on  trial  before  the  court  of  the 
Areopagus.  No  criminal  charge  was  laid  against  him  at  all. 
After  a  round  of  public  discussion  with  the  Stoics  and  the 
Epicureans  in  the  agora  at  Athens,  with  ridicule  from  some 
of  the  people  (Acts  17 : 18),  others  more  courteously  proposed 
that  Paul  go  up  unto  the  Areopagus  and  in  a  more  formal 
address  expound  his  strange  teaching  (17:19f.).  In  Athens 
there  was  always  a  crowd  ready  to  hear  some  new  thing.  Paul 
was  in  an  embarrassing  situation.  Like  Socrates  of  old,  he 
had  crossed  swords  with  the  sophists  of  the  new  time.  But 
the  crowd  passed  quick  judgment  on  Paul  as  a  mere  babbler 
or  seed-picker1  (17 : 18),  like  the  birds  that  hopped  about  in 
the  market-place.  They  little  knew  that  a  greater  than  Soc 
rates  was  here,  one  with  an  infinitely  greater  philosophy,  the 
wisdom  of  God.  Socrates  was  tried  and  condemned  for  intro 
ducing  strange  divinities.  The  same  charge  is  made  against 
Paul.  Three  views  exist  as  to  what  took  place  on  the  Areopa 
gus.  One  is  that  Paul  made  a  popular  philosophical  exposi 
tion  of  Christianity  to  the  crowd  that  invited  him  up  there. 
The  conduct  of  the  hearers  lends  some  color  to  this  view 
(17 : 32-34).  Another  view  is  that  a  real  trial  before  the 
court  of  the  Areopagus  took  place.  Rackham  argues  ably 
that  Paul  was  arraigned  before  the  court  for  introducing  new 
divinities  as  Socrates  had  been.  He  suggests  that  the  exami 
nation  took  place  before  the  court  of  the  Areopagus,  but  in  the 
Stoa  Basilica,  and  that  Paul  took  advantage  of  the  occasion  to 


proclaim  the  gospel.  There  was  one  Areopagite  (Dionysius) 
present  who  was  converted.  But  this  view  is  not  convincing. 
Ramsay1  is  positive  that  Paul  was  brought  before  the  council 
of  Areopagus,  but  not  for  trial.  He  thinks  that  the  Stoics 
wanted  him  examined  by  the  council  to  see  if  he  was  entitled 
to  a  permit  to  lecture  in  the  university  atmosphere.  "Cer 
tain  powers  were  vested  in  the  council  of  Areopagus  to  appoint 
or  invite  lecturers  at  Athens,  and  to  exercise  some  general 
control  over  the  lecturers  in  the  interest  of  public  order  and 
morality." 2  It  is  not  certain  that  the  hill  of  Mars  is  meant 
by  the  Areopagus,  which  can  mean  simply  the  court  of  Are 
opagus,  whether  held  on  Mars  Hill  or  in  the  agora.  In  any 
case  it  hardly  seems  likely  that  it  was  a  court  trial  for  a  crime, 
but  a  University  court  in  which  Paul  made  his  defense  as  a 
teacher.  Ramsay3  shows  that  the  Areopagus  is  not  always 
topographical.  Certainly,  this  is  a  plausible  view,  and  on  the 
whole  the  most  likely  to  be  true.  At  any  rate,  in  Athens 
Paul  is  in  a  Greek  atmosphere  of  freedom,  and  does  not  feel 
the  hand  of  Roman  law  or  the  jealousy  of  Jewish  rabbis  or  the 
hatred  of  business  interests.  The  intellectuals  of  Athens  soon 
lose  interest  in  the  wild  theories  of  the  new  and  raw  philoso 
pher.  They  laugh  him  out  of  court  and  out  of  town. 

But  in  Ephesus  we  see  all  the  forms  and  processes  of  Grseco- 
Roman  law  (proconsul,4  town  clerk,5  assembly,6  courts7). 
Ephesus  had  thus  a  Greek  constitution  besides  the  Roman 
proconsul.  The  popular  assembly  met  every  three  months 
and  oftener  on  occasion.  The  town-clerk  was  an  important 
official.  The  proconsul  represented  the  supreme  authority  of 
Rome.  The  Asiarchs  (19 :  31),  who  were  friendly  to  Paul  and 
would  not  allow  him  to  face  the  mob  in  the  amphitheatre,  were 
provincial  officers  who  had  charge,  among  other  things,  of  the 
provincial  worship  of  the  Emperor.  "A  temple  and  altar  to 
Rome  and  the  emperor  were  erected  in  some  city,  which  there 
upon  was  designated  Neocoros8  or  Sacristar  (literally,  temple- 
sweeper),  i.  e.,  of  the  imperial  temple."9  Thessalonica  and 
Beroea  were  also  "temple-sweepers."  Ephesus  was  exeeed- 

'  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  246. 

2  Ibid.  «  ft^  pp.  244  f. 

4  dtvOuxato?  (19  :  38).  5  YP«wwrce6<;  (19  :  35). 

•  STJIXO?  (19: 33),  IxxXrjofa  (19  :  39).  7  dyopalot  (19  :  38). 

8  vewx6po?  (19  :  35).  9  Rackham,  Acts,  p.  363. 


ingly  proud  of  this  honor  as  well  as  of  the  title  of  "temple- 
sweeper"  for  the  temple  of  Diana.  Inscriptions  show  that 
the  name  "temple-sweeper"  was  also  used  in  reference  to  the 
worship  of  Diana  (Artemis),  so  that  Luke  is  vindicated  on  this 
point.  "Great  Artemis"  was  the  usual  title  given  this  god 
dess.  Inscriptions  call  her  "Great  Artemis"  and  "Most  Great 
Goddess"  (cf.  "Most  High  God"  in  Acts  16:17,  also  in  in 
scriptions).  One  of  the  decrees  at  Ephesus  speaks  of  the 
decline  of  the  worship  of  Artemis  as  Luke  does.  "Mr.  Wood's 
excavations  of  this  temple  and  the  numerous  inscriptions  there 
discovered  have  given  a  revelation  of  this  worship  which 
entirely  corroborates  the  lifelike  picture  in  the  Acts."1  It  is 
probable  that  the  Asiarchs  induced  the  town  clerk  to  dismiss 
the  mob.  We  see  here  Grseco-Roman  law  invoked  in  defense 
of  Paul,  as  Gallio  took  his  side  in  Corinth.  In  Antioch  in 
Pisidia  the  Jewish  rabbis  got  the  city  officials  to  act  on  their 
side  against  Paul.  In  Ephesus  Paul  had  lived  three  years, 
and  so  had  won  the  friendship  of  the  Asiarchs  who  befriended 
him.  Perhaps,  also,  Paul  in  Ephesus  was  more  careful  about 
references  to  the  emperor-worship  than  he  had  been  in  Thessa- 
lonica.  He  seems  here  to  have  directed  his  energy  more  against 
the  worship  of  Diana  than  against  the  emperor-worship.  At 
any  rate  the  Asiarchs  were  not  charged  with  the  worship  of 
Diana.  The  town  clerk  skilfully  parried  the  charge  of  Deme 
trius  about  Diana's  proud  magnificence  and  showed  that  Paul 
and  his  friends  were  not  temple-robbers2  or  blasphemers  of  the 
goddess  Diana  (19:37).  Demetrius  had  followed  the  line  of 
the  masters  in  Philippi  and  had  gone  a  step  farther.  He  had 
aroused  the  self-interest  of  the  craftsmen  (guild  or  labor-unions, 
common  enough  at  that  time)  by  appeals  to  the  peril  to  the 
trade  and  so  to  their  jobs  (19  :  24-27).  Capitalist  and  workmen 
here  unite  against  Paul.  In  public,  however,  the  cry  of  peril 
to  Diana  was  raised  (19 : 26  f.),  and  nothing  was  said  about 
the  business  interests  hit  by  Paul's  preaching.  We  see  here  a 
close  parallel  to  the  modern  struggle  with  the  liquor  trade. 
The  hatred  of  vested  business  interests  was  turned  against 
Paul  and  only  the  quick  action  of  his  powerful  friends  in  office 
saved  him  and  his  friends  Gaius  and  Aristarchus.  They  would 
have  gotten  Paul  in  time  had  he  remained  in  Ephesus.  So  he 
quickly  left  (Acts  20:1). 
1  Rackham,  Acts,  p.  364,  2  lspoa6Xou<;. 


4.  The  Sanhedrin  and  Jewish  Law. — We  have  seen  how  Luke 
pictures  Paul  in  touch  with  Greek  and  Roman  law.  It  remains 
to  see  how  he  fares  with  Jewish  law.  Paul  was  certainly  at 
home  before  the  Sanhedrin,  whose  agent  he  had  been  in  the 
persecution  of  Christianity  (Acts  8 :  3;  9 : 1  f.;  22 : 4  f.^;  26 : 10  f.) 
and  of  which  he  was  possibly  a  member  (26  : 10).  The  powers 
of  the  Sanhedrin  had  been  greatly  limited  since  the  days  of 
Herod  the  Great.  Rome  reserved  the  right  of  capital  punish 
ment  (John  18 : 31)  and  the  Sanhedrin  had  no  jurisdiction  in 
Galilee  and  Samaria,1  yet  local  synagogues  were  allowed  to 
have  a  good  deal  of  authority.2  The  stoning  of  Stephen 
(Acts  7 : 58)  was  lynch-law,  an  illegal  murder.  Stoning  was 
the  old  Jewish  penalty  for  blasphemy,  but  the  Sanhedrin  no 
longer  had  that  right.  Stephen  so  enraged  this  body  that 
they  took  the  law  into  their  own  hands,  and  the  Roman  proc 
urator  seems  to  have  let  it  pass,  if  indeed  he  was  in  office  at 
this  juncture.  The  persecution  of  other  Christians  by  the 
Sanhedrin  (Acts  5:33;  22:4;  26:10)  was  either  ^ ignored  or 
winked  at  by  the  Roman  officials  as  a  matter  of  slight  impor 
tance  from  the  standpoint  of  Roman  law  and  order.  The 
Sanhedrin  could  arrest  persons  and  imprison  them  and  flog 
them  (Acts  5 : 18,  40;  22 :  4;  26 : 10;  II  Cor.  11 :  24  f.).  The 
death  of  James  in  Acts  12 : 2  was  by  order  of  Herod  Agrippa  I 
while  he  was  King  of  Judea.  And  Peter  would  have  fared  the 
same  fate  but  for  the  interposition  of  God  and  Peter's  flight 
(12 : 3-17). 

Stephen  stirred  up  the  Pharisees  (6 : 11-14)  as  Peter  had 
aroused  the  Sadducees  (4 : 1  f.;  5  : 17  f.).  Paul  carried  on  the 
persecution  of  the  disciples  as  a  Pharisee,  and  Gamaliel,  his 
great  teacher,  no  more  interposed  to  stay  his  hand  as  he  had 
done  once  in  behalf  of  the  Apostles,  to  score  a  point  against 
the  Sadducees  (5  :  33-42).  Paul,  on  his  last  visit  to  Jerusalem, 
met  the  hatred  of  the  Jewish  mob  as  he  had  faced  mobs  of 
Jews  or  Gentiles  in  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  Iconium,  Bercea,  Cor 
inth,  Ephesus.  The  rage  of  the  Jerusalem  mob  is  due  to 
charges  made  by  Jews  of  Asia,  probably  old  enemies  in  Ephe 
sus,  who  were  angered  by  Paul's  association  with  Trophimus, 
a  Greek  Christian  of  Ephesus,  in  Jerusalem  (21 :  27-31).  The 
mob  mind  is  very  much  alike  anywhere.  The  crowd-conscious 
ness  of  these  Jews  is  outside  of  the  pale  of  law.  It  is  the  same 

1  Maclean,  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Ch. 

2  Biggs,  St.  Peter  and  Jude,  p.  25. 


thirst  for  blood  that  Paul  had  once  felt  as  a  persecutor.  It  is 
the  Roman  chief-captain  who  rescues  Paul  by  the  aid  of  sol 
diers  from  death  by  the  mob  (21 : 33-36).  The  position  of 
Paul  is  now  peculiar.  He  appears  to  Claudius  Lysias  as  a 
criminal  of  some  sort.  He  first  suspects  him  of  being  the 
famous  Egyptian  leader  of  the  band  of  "assassins"  (21:38) 
and  is  astonished  that  Paul  speaks  Greek.  On  learning  that 
Paul  is  a  Jew  of  Tarsus  he  allows  him  to  speak  to  the  mob  from 
the  steps  of  the  tower  of  Antonia,  which  he  does  in  Aramaic, 
so  that  the  chief-captain  did  not  understand  his  address,  but 
saw  only  the  wild  confusion  at  the  end  (21 :  39-22 : 23).  He 
tried  to  ferret  out  the  guilt  of  Paul  by  scourging  only  to  find 
that  he  was  dealing  with  a  Roman  citizen  and  was  in  peril  of 
a  crime  himself  (22 : 24-29) :  "The  chief-captain  also  was  afraid 
when  he  knew  that  he  was  a  Roman,  and  that  he  had  bound 

In  his  perplexity  Claudius  Lysias  called  a  meeting  of  the 
Sanhedrin1  in  order  to  see  if  that  body  could  define  Paul's  guilt 
to  guide  his  course  (22:30).  Paul  was  at  home  before  this 
body  of  the  fathers,  but  at  once  lost  all  chance  of  a  fair  inquiry 
by  the  claim  that  he  had  lived  in  all  good  conscience  up  till 
now,  including  his  conversion  to  Christ.  The  upshot  was  the 
claim  by  Paul  that  he  was  still  a  Pharisee  on  the  subject  of  the 
resurrection  and  this  claim  was  followed  by  the  violent  cleav 
age  of  the  body  who  were  about  to  tear  Paul  in  pieces  in  the 
effort  to  get  at  each  other.  Once  more  Claudius  Lysias  res 
cued  Paul  from  the  Jewish  court  and  he  was  still  in  the  dark 
about  his  prisoner  (23 : 1-10). 

The  conspiracy  against  Paul  and  the  wit  of  Paul's  nephew 
led  the  chief-captain  to  send  Paul  away  from  Jerusalem  by 
night  under  guard  of  a  company  of  soldiers  in  order  to  get  him 
away  from  the  forces  of  Jewish  hate  in  Jerusalem.  His  letter 
puts  the  best  face  on  the  matter  for  Claudius  Lysias,  and  is 
not  in  accord  with  the  facts  (23  :  26-30).  So  Paul  has  escaped 
the  toils  set  for  him  in  Jerusalem,  but  he  is  still  a  prisoner  in 
Csesarea  in  Herod's  palace.2 

1  Ramsay  ("  Trial  Scenes  in  the  Acts,"  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  90) 
is  sure  that  this  was  not  a  formal  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin,  but  was  a 
hurried  called  meeting. 

2  Or  praetorium  (xpatTwptov) .     On  the  meaning  of  this  word  and  other 
legal  and  technical  terms,  see  Ferguson,  "The  Legal  Terms  Common  to 
the  Macedonian  Inscriptions  and  the  New  Testament"   (Historical  and 
Linguistic  Studies  of  University  of  Chicago,  vol.  II). 


5.  Roman  Law  in  Palestine. — Paul  has  escaped  the  jaws  of 
death  from  the  mob,  the  Sanhedrin  and  the  conspirators  in 
Jerusalem.  He  now  stands  at  the  bar  of  the  Roman  proc 
urator  in  Csesarea.  Once  before  Paul  had  faced  the  Roman 
governor,  the  proconsul  Gallio,  in  Corinth.  Then,  as  now,  it 
was  the  Jews  who  made  accusations  against  him.  Then  he 
was  set  free,  with  the  result  that  Christianity  was  given  a  legal 
standing  in  Achaia  as  a  religio  licita,  a  form  of  Judaism.  That 
was  in  a  heathen  city,  where  the  Jews  were  disliked  as  they 
were  everywhere.  "Beware  of  the  Jews"1  Serapim  wrote  to 
Heraclides,  who  was  in  money  difficulties  A.  D.  41.  In  Pales 
tine,  at  least,  Christianity  is  no  longer  regarded  as  a  form  of 
Judaism  by  the  Jews.  Peter  and  John  once  worshipped  in 
the  temple.  Slowly  the  lines  have  been  drawn.  Paul's  great 
Gentile  propaganda  has  stirred  many  of  the  Jewish  Christians, 
the  Judaizers,  against  him.  But  the  Roman  government  has 
not  yet  assumed  a  hostile  attitude  toward  Christianity.  The 
case  of  Paul  really  carries  with  it  the  future  of  Christianity  in 
the  Roman  Empire.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  Luke  devotes 
so  much  space  to  the  details  of  his  imprisonment  and  trials  in 
Csesarea.  Paul  stands  at  the  bar  of  Roman  provincial  jus 
tice,  but  he  is  in  Palestine,  where  the  Roman  governor  feels 
the  full  force  of  Jewish  hate  and  Jewish  power,  as  Pilate  did 
when  he  surrendered  to  the  demand  of  the  Sanhedrin.  Luke 
told  that  story  with  great  power  in  the  Gospel.  What  will 
Felix  now  do  with  the  case  of  Paul?  Will  he  surrender  him 
to  the  Sanhedrin  as  Pilate  did  Jesus  ? 

Felix  makes  a  fair  start.  He  would  wait  for  the  accusers  to 
come  (23:35).  Ananias,  the  high  priest,  appeared  with  five 
elders  and  a  Roman  lawyer  or  pleader  (orator),  Tertullus,  who 
argued  the  case  against  Paul  after  the  accusations  of  Ananias 
(24:1-9).  It  is  a  characteristic  demagogical  harangue  with 
flattery  of  Felix  and  denunciation  of  Paul.  Paul  pleads  his 
own  case  (24:10-21).  He  shows  the  falsity  of  the  charge 
about  profaning  the  temple,  the  vagueness  of  that  about  caus 
ing  disturbances  and  admits  that  he  is  a  member  of  the  sect 
of  the  Nazarenes,  which  he  claims  is  in  accord  with  the  Jewish 
hope.  Luke  adds  a  curious  comment  about  Felix  "having 
more  exact  knowledge  concerning  the  Way"  (24:22).  More 
exact  than  what?  The  Way  is  Christianity.  Felix  is  acute 

1  B.  G.  U.,  1079,  24  f.,  xcrt  oft  pXSice  oatbv  dcicb  TG>V  ' 


enough  to  see  that  in  reality  Christianity  is  on  trial  for  its  legal 
status  in  Palestine.  He  probably  knew  of  the  decision  of 
Gallio.  At  any  rate,  he  knew  enough  to  be  unwilling  to  con 
vict  Paul  and  yet  he  feared  the  Jews  too  much  to  set  him  free. 
So  he  put  off  the  case,  possibly  influenced,  also,  by  the  men 
tion  of  "alms"  by  Paul,  as  holding  out  hope  of  a  bribe.  At 
any  rate,  that  came  to  be  a  definite  motive1  with  him  (24 :  26) 
after  he  recovered  from  the  shock  of  Paul's  powerful  sermon 
to  him  and  to  Drusilla  (24 :  24  f.).  But  Felix  dallied  with  the 
case  for  two  years,  and  left  Paul  a  prisoner,  when  recalled,  to 
please  the  Jews  (24 : 27).  Felix  makes  a  sorry  spectacle  of 
Roman  justice,  but  Luke's  picture  is  in  keeping  with  what  is 
known  of  him  elsewhere. 

The  coming  of  Festus  revived  the  hopes  of  the  Jews,  who  at 
once  (cf.  coming  of  Gallio  to  Corinth)  undertook  to  induce 
Festus  to  bring  Paul  from  Csesarea,  plotting  again  to  kill  him 
on  the  way  (25 : 1-5).  But  Festus  was  not  so  easily  caught 
and  he  also  began  well.  He  demanded  that  the  accusers  come 
to  Csesarea,  where  he  held  court.  So  they  came  again  with 
the  same  old  charges,  which  Paul  promptly  denied.  Now 
Festus  asked  Paul  if  he  were  not  willing  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem 
and  be  tried  there  before  him  (25 : 9)  indeed,  but  probably 
according  to  Jewish  law.  The  procurators  sometimes  applied 
Jewish  law  in  such  cases.  It  was  a  trap  set  for  Paul  for  the 
purpose  of  pleasing  the  Jews.  Paul's  patience  was  at  last 
exhausted.  He  knew  what  Jerusalem  held  in  store  for  him. 
He  now  knew  that  Festus  was  no  better  than  Felix,  and  that 
he  lacked  the  courage  to  stand  up  against  the  Jews.  He  had 
waited  two  years  on  Felix.  There  was  but  one  hope  left,  and 
that  lay  in  the  right  of  appeal  to  Caesar,  which  he  could  make 
as  a  Roman  citizen.  This  he  did  and  at  once  took  the  case 
out  of  the  hands  of  Festus  (25: 10-12).  Luke  has  told  this 
story  with  great  detail  and  vividness.  He  was  probably  pres 
ent  during  these  arraignments  of  Paul,  though  he  may  not 
have  remained  in  Csesarea  all  of  the  two  years.  Ramsay2 
thinks  that  Luke  regarded  Paul's  trials  in  Csesarea  and  the 
appeal  to  Caesar  as  a  test  case  for  Christianity.  Hence  he  felt 

1  Ramsay  (St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  310)  thinks  that  Paul  came  into  his 
patrimony  about  this  time  and  was  thus  able  to  bear  the  expense  of  his 
long  lawsuit. 

2  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  308. 


justified  in  devoting  so  much  space  to  it.  He  evidently  com 
pleted  Acts  when  it  was  clear  that  Paul  would  be  acquitted, 
and  hence  a  new  day  would  dawn  for  Christianity  in  the 
Roman  Empire.  Incidentally,  this  is  an  argument  for  dating 
Acts  before  A.  D.  64,  when  all  of  a  sudden  Nero  turned  against 
Christianity.  There  is  no  hint  of  this  outcome  in  the  Acts. 
"The  importance  of  the  trial  for  Luke  is  intelligible  only  if 
Paul  was  acquitted," 1  and,  one  may  add,  Luke  wrote  in  igno 
rance  of  the  reversal  of  Roman  policy  by  Nero  in  A.  D.  64. 
Felix  and  Festus  show  the  Roman  governors  at  their  worst. 

The  so-called  trial  of  Paul  before  Herod  Agrippa  II  was  no 
trial  at  all.  The  case  was  no  longer  in  the  hands  of  Festus. 
It  was  really  a  sort  of  mock  trial  or  entertainment  arranged 
by  Festus  to  relieve  the  ennui  of  Agrippa  and  Bernice  on  their 
visit  to  Festus,  as  Luke  makes  plain  (25 : 13-27).  It  is  evident 
that  Paul  need  not  have  spoken  unless  he  cared  to  do  so.  No 
charges  were  placed  against  Paul.  Agrippa,  as  a  fellow  Jew, 
was  more  likely  to  understand  Paul  and  so  he  took  advantage 
of  this  opportunity  to  state  his  case  and  make  an  apology  for 
his  whole  life  (26 : 1-23).  The  plea  of  Festus  that  he  had  no 
charge  against  Paul  to  send  to  Caesar  was  doubtless  true,  nor 
did  he  secure  one  on  this  occasion  (26:24-32).  Ramsay2 
notes  how  true  Luke  is  to  the  facts  in  each  case:  "Legal  pro 
ceedings  are  taken  against  Paul  and  his  friends  in  many  places, 
and  accusations  have  to  be  made  in  each  case,  according  to 
the  forms  of  Roman  law.  The  accusation  varies  in  each  case; 
it  is  nowhere  the  same  as  in  any  other  city;  yet  it  is  everywhere 
in  accordance  with  Roman  forms."  Ramsay  lucidly  shows 
how  the  accusers  had  to  find  some  crime  in  Paul's  conduct  at 
Philippi,  Thessalonica,  Athens,  Corinth,  Ephesus,  Jerusalem 
and  Csesarea,  and  how  skilful  they  were  in  relating  their 
grudges  to  the  Roman  legal  forms,  as  we  have  already  shown. 

The  Acts  closes  with  Paul  still  a  prisoner  in  Rome,  but  with 
a  hope  of  release  implied,  as  in  Paul's  Epistles  to  Philippians 
and  Philemon.  But  at  the  close  of  Acts  the  future  attitude 
of  Rome  to  Christianity  is  problematical.  It  seems  probable 
that  Paul  was  set  free  by  Nero  without  a  trial,  the  case  going 
by  default.  But  the  burning  of  Rome  by  Nero  in  A.  D.  64 
quickly3  changed  the  whole  atmosphere.  He  laid  that  crime 

1  Ibid.  2  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery,  p.  97. 

3  Probably  by  A.  D.  65. 


at  the  door  of  the  Christians  and  began  to  treat  them  as  crim 
inals.    There  are  echoes  of  this  attitude  in  I  Peter  4 : 16. 

The  Romans  learned  to  distinguish  between  Christians  and 
Jews.  The  Jews  drew  the  line  against  Christians.  The 
author  of  Hebrews  (13 : 13)  will  urge  the  Christians  to  follow 
Christ  without  the  camp.  The  Christians  had  already  had  to 
choose  between  Lord  Caesar  and  Lord  Jesus  (cf.  I  Cor.  12  : 1-3). 
When  Trajan  writes  to  Pliny  it  is  unlawful  to  be  a  Christian 
and  the  natural  implication  is  that  it  had  long  been  a  crime  to 
be  a  Christian.  Paul  saw  the  fight  coming  between  Christ 
and  Caesar  for  world  conquest.  Luke  has  drawn  in  Acts  the 
picture  of  the  events  that  led  up1  to  that  conflict  which  lasted 
for  centuries,  which  in  essence  still  rages.  The  Christian  still 
has  to  face  the  problem  of  loyalty  to  Christ  or  to  Caesar  when 
Caesar  tramples  the  cross  beneath  his  feet.  But  at  first 
Roman  law  did  not  seriously  interfere  with  the  spread  of 
Christianity.  Judaism  was  tolerated  and  Christianity  was 
treated  as  a  sect  of  Judaism.  "This  tolerance  of  the  Jewish 
religion  was  of  incalculable  importance  to  infant  Christianity, 
which  at  first  professed  to  be  no  more  than  a  reformed  and 
expanded  Judaism.'*2  When  the  distinction  was  finally  drawn 
by  Roman  law,  Christianity  was  too  powerful  to  be  suppressed. 
It  was  able  to  fight  the  mightiest  empire  of  earth. 

1  Harnack,  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  p.  288.    Luke  "reflects  very  early  con 
ceptions  and  expresses  historical  relations  which  existed  at  the  time  of 
St.  Paul." 

2  Angus,  Int.  St.  B.  Encycl.  ("Roman  Empire"). 



"And  casting  off  the  anchors,  they  left  them  in  the  sea,  at  the  same 
time  loosing  the  bands  of  the  rudders;  and  hoisting  the  foresail  to 
the  wind,  they  made  for  the  beach"  (Acts  27 : 40). 

Few  chapters  in  any  book  have  a  fascination  surpassing  that 
in  Acts  27.  Here  we  see  Luke  the  sailor,  the  man  of  travel, 
the  man  of  observation.  The  habits  of  diagnosis  as  a  doctor 
played  him  in  good  stead  in  seeing  the  points  of  interest  in  the 
voyage  and  shipwreck.  He  had  quick  eyes  that  saw  the  sa 
lient  points  at  issue.  He  may  have  made  notes  during  the 
storm,  or  he  may  have  written  out  his  vivid  recollections  after 
reaching  Rome.  He  had  doubtless  made  many  voyages  before 
and  knew  the  ways  of  the  sea. 

1.  The  Immense  Value  of  Acts  27. — Luke  makes  it  plain  that 
Paul  made  frequent  voyages  to  carry  on  his  work.  He  sailed 
from  Seleucia  to  Cyprus  (Acts  13 : 4),  from  Troas  to  Neapolis 
(16: 11),  possibly  from  Beroea  to  Athens  (17: 14),  from  Cen- 
chrese  to  Ephesus  (18 : 18),  from  Ephesus  to  Caesarea  (18  :  21  f.), 
to  Macedonia  again  (20 : 1),  from  Philippi  to  Troas  (20 : 6), 
from  Assos  with  various  stops  to  Csesarea  (20:13-21:14). 
But  it  is  plain  that  Luke  has  not  recorded,  even  in  this  sum 
mary  fashion,  all  the  voyages  of  Paul,  for  he  himself  says: 
"Thrice  I  suffered  shipwreck,  a  night  and  a  day  have  I  been 
in  the  deep"  (II  Cor.  11 :25),  and  he  also  spoke  of  "perils in 
the  sea"  (II  Cor.  11:26).  These  experiences  were  several 
years  before  the  famous  voyage  narrated  at  length  and  with 
such  power  in  Acts  27. 

But  it  is  Acts  27  that  really  shows  Luke  and  Paul  at  their 
best  in  the  sea.  "The  story  is  told  with  such  a  wealth  of 
detail  that  in  all  classical  literature  there  is  no  passage  which 
gives  us  so  much  information  about  the  working  of  an  ancient 
ship." 2  We  have  other  narratives  of  ancient  voyages  in  mer 
chant  vessels.  Josephus3  tells  that  the  ship  on  which  he  was 

lfThe  Record  of  Christian  Work,  August,  1920. 
2  Rackham,  p.  476.  »  Vita,  III. 



wrecked  carried  about  six  hundred  persons.  Lucian1  pictures 
the  voyage  of  an  Alexandrian  wheat-ship  on  its  course  from 
Alexandria  to  Myra  and  to  Athens.  The  ship  had  a  tonnage 
of  twelve  hundred  tons.  Herod  the  Great  had  a  shipwreck 
also  on  his  way  to  Rome  from  Alexandria.  In  stormy  weather 
he  took  ship  to  Pamphylia  and  was  shipwrecked  at  Rhodes, 
with  loss  of  the  ship's  cargo.  There  he  built  a  three-decked 
ship  and  set  sail  with  his  friends  for  Brundisium  in  Italy  and 
so  reached  Rome.2  In  the  Periodoi  of  Barnabas  we  have  the 
description  of  "a  voyage  from  Seleucia  in  Syria  to  Cyprus  in 
the  face  of  a  prevailing  steady  westerly  wind  the  work  of  a 
person  familiar  with  the  circumstances."3  But  these  narra 
tives  all  fall  short  of  the  one  by  Luke  in  Acts  27.  "It  is  to 
Luke  that  we  owe  the  most  vivid  as  well  as  the  most  accurate 
account  of  sea-voyaging  that  has  come  down  to  us  from  an 
tiquity.  Experts  in  naval  science  agree  that  it  is  without  a 
parallel."4  There  is  no  trouble  in  believing  that  the  second 
vessel  in  Acts  27  carried  two  hundred  and  seventy-six  souls 
(27  :  37),  or  that  the  third  vessel,  the  Castor  and  Pollux,  carried 
these  besides  its  crew  and  cargo  (28 : 11). 

The  Phoenicians  and  the  Greeks  were  the  sailors  of  antiquity. 
They  were  those  "who  go  down  to  the  sea  in  ships  and  occupy 
themselves  in  great  waters."  The  Book  of  Revelation 
(chap.  18)  speaks  of  Rome  as  the  city  whose  ships  cover  the 
Mediterranean,  whose  merchants  trade  with  all  the  earth. 
That  is  true,  for  Rome  drew  the  commerce  of  the  world  to  her 
doors.  The  mariners  of  all  nations,  "who  work  the  sea"5 
(Rev.  18: 17)  set  sail  for  Rome.  "Woe,  Woe,  the  great  city, 
wherein  all  that  had  their  ships  in  the  sea  were  made  rich  by 
reason  of  her  costliness"  (Rev.  18 : 19).  The  ancients  dreaded 
the  sea,  for  they  were  without  chart  or  compass  and  at  the 
mercy  of  wind  and  wave  with  their  rowboats  and  sailing-ves 
sels.  One  of  the  joys  of  heaven  will  be  that  "the  sea  is  no 
more"  (Rev.  21 : 1).  "The  modern  joy  and  delight  in  the  sea 
was  a  sentiment  almost  unknown  to  the  peoples  of  antiquity. 
One  Greek  poet,  JEschylus,  could  write  of  '  the  many-twinkling 

1  The  Ship  or  Wishes  (IlXotov  %  Eu^O- 

2  Josephus,  Ant.  XIV,  xiv. 

3  Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  317. 

4  Robinson,  Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Ch.  ("Ship"). 
6  oaot  rf)v  66Xaaaav 


smile  of  ocean/  but  to  the  ancients  generally  the  sea  inspired 
only  emotions  of  dislike  and  dread.  The  incommodious  ships 
and  the  possibilities  of  long  delays  owing  to  contrary  winds 
made  the  voyage  anything  but  a  pleasure." 1  There  was  lack 
of  knowledge  of  navigation,  and  winter  closed  down  the  seas 
on  the  Mediterranean.  Neptune  had  terrors  for  the  ancients 
that  appear  in  the  allusions  in  classical  literature,  terrors 
enough,  one  may  add,  without  the  modern  agent  of  the  devil, 
the  submarine.  And  yet  some  of  the  Greeks  loved  the  sea. 
Ramsay2  says  that  Luke  "shows  the  true  Greek  feeling  for 
the  sea."  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  Nelson  had  been 
reading  Acts  27  on  the  morning  of  the  battle  of  Copenhagen. 

2.  The  Same  Note  of  Accuracy  in  Acts  27. — We  have  come 
to  have  confidence  in  Luke  the  historian  as  we  have  tested  him 
in  so  many  ways.  It  was  to  be  expected  that  Acts  27  would 
be  subjected  to  the  most  minute  research.  Luke  uses  a  great 
deal  of  technical  detail  from  the  nature  of  the  case.  Every 
statement  here  has  been  challenged  by  experts  in  naval  mat 
ters.  The  literature  is  now  considerable.3  Far  the  most  val 
uable  is  the  work  of  Smith,  of  Jordanhill,  The  Voyage  and  Ship 
wreck  of  St.  Paul.  He  made  a  minute  study  of  every  aspect 
of  the  voyage.  There  is  a  discussion  of  each  of  the  three  ships 
(Csesarea  to  Myra,  Myra  to  Malta,  Malta  to  Puteoli)  in  which 
Paul  and  Luke  sailed,  the  size  of  the  ships,  the  winds,  the  ton 
nage,  the  number  of  passengers,  the  direction  and  speed  of  the 
second  ship  in  the  storm,  the  island  of  Malta  and  every  point 
that  is  involved.  It  is  all  done  with  great  thoroughness  and 
fairness,  with  the  use  of  all  knowledge  that  can  be  obtained 
about  ancient  ships  and  seafaring. 

Smith4  says  that  Luke  possesses  two  great  qualifications  for 
writing  this  chapter.  "  The  first  of  these  is  his  perfect  acquain 
tance  with  nautical  matters,  and  the  second  is  his  accuracy. 
No  man  who  was  not  in  an  eminent  degree  gifted  with  this 
quality  could  have  given  a  narrative  capable  of  being  tested  as 

1  Rackham,  Acts,  p.  475.  2  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  21. 

3  J.  Smith,  The  Voyage  and  Shipwreck  of  St.  Paul,  4th  ed.,  1880;  A.  Breus- 
ing,  Die  Nautik  der  Alien,  1886;  J.  Vars,  L'Art  nautique  dans  Vantiquite  et 
specialement  en  grec,  1887;  H.  Balmer,  Die  Romfahrt  des  Apostels  Paulus, 
1905;  C.  Torr,  Ancient  Ships,  1894;  Everitt,  St.  Paul's  Journey  to  Rome, 
1904;  cyclopaedic  article;  E.  Smith,  "Last  Voyage  and  Shipwreck  of  St. 
Paul"  (Homiktic  Review,  August,  1919). 

4  Op.  cit.,  pp.  25  f . 


his  has  been  in  the  following  examination.  He  must  not  only 
have  been  an  accurate  observer,  but  his  memory  must  have 
been  accurate,  and  his  habits  of  thought  and  reasoning  no  less 
so."  This  judgment  Smith  renders  after  thorough  and  pains 
taking  examination  of  every  detail.  "St.  Luke,  by  his  accu 
rate  use  of  nautical  terms,  gives  great  precision  to  his  language, 
and  expresses  by  a  single  word  what  would  otherwise  require 
several."1  As  one  illustration  of  his  accuracy  take  the  dis 
tance  and  direction  from  Clauda  to  Malta.  Luke  has  only  a 
few  disjointed  allusions  to  these  matters  in  his  narrative,  and 
yet  they  work  out  like  a  modern  log-book  the  dead  reckoning 
of  the  ship's  course  and  speed.  The  distance  was  four  hun 
dred  and  seventy-six  miles,  and  this  would  take  a  little  over 
thirteen  days  (on  the  fourteenth  day,  27 : 27),  at  the  rate  of 
drifting  of  one  and  one-half  miles  an  hour.  The  direction,  as 
the  result  of  the  Euraquilo  or  east-northeast  wind  (27 : 14)  and 
tacking  eight  points  to  the  north  (as  close  to  the  wind  as  was 
safe),  would  bring  one  to  the  island  of  Malta.2  "Hence,  ac 
cording  to  these  calculations,  a  ship  starting  late  on  the  eve 
ning  from  Clauda  would  by  midnight  on  the  fourteenth  be  less 
than  three  miles  from  the  entrance  of  St.  Paul's  Bay." 3 

And  this  is  not  all.  The  measurements  by  fathoms,  twenty 
and  fifteen  (27  :  28),  corresponds  to  the  coast  there.  And  there 
is  a  bay  with  a  place  where  two  seas  meet  (27 : 41),  and  to  this 
day  it  is  called  St.  Paul's  Bay.4  Surely,  then,  Luke  is  entitled 
to  consideration  in  the  details  to  be  examined. 

3.  The  Personality  of  Paul  Dominant  in  the  Narrative. — Fas 
cinating  as  the  story  is,  Luke  did  not  write  his  narrative  just 
to  depict  a  shipwreck.  He  is  not  consciously  writing  a  "pur 
ple"  passage.  He  describes  the  voyage  at  all  only  because  of 
his  interest  in  Paul.  "The  very  desperateness  of  the  situation 
throws  into  the  strongest  relief  the  personality  of  S.  Paul. 
At  the  moment  of  utter  despair  he  rises  up  in  the  midst  and  is 
found  a  rock  on  which  all  can  trust,  the  inspirer  of  hope  and 
the  master-mind  which  is  able  to  direct  and  command  as  the 
crisis  requires — in  a  word,  their  saviour.  Nowhere  in  the  Acts 
is  there  a  finer  display  of  sympathy  and  strength.  Thus  the 
very  passages  which  glorify  the  apostle — and  for  that  reason 
suspected  by  some  critics— are  those  which  contain  S.  Luke's 

1  Ibid.,  p.  61,  note.  2  Smith,  op.  cit.,  pp.  122-6. 

3  7WdL,  p.  126.  <  Ibid.,  p.  172. 


motive  for  relating  the  history  of  the  voyage,  and  the  multitude 
of  details  supply  the  necessary  background."  1 

It  is  true  that  Paul  is  a  prisoner,  but  he  is  treated  with  the 
utmost  consideration2  by  Julius  the  centurion,  who  has  charge 
of  all  the  prisoners  and  the  soldiers3  and  is  the  ranking  Roman 
officer  on  each  of  the  ships,  outranking  the  captain,  who  with 
us  would  be  in  complete  control  of  the  vessel.  Ramsay4  argues 
plausibly  that  Luke  and  Aristarchus  were  able  to  accompany 
Paul  by  offering  themselves  as  his  slaves  for  the  voyage.  Pris 
oners  would  not  be  allowed  to  have  mere  friends.  In  Luke's 
narrative  "Paul  admonished  them"  (27 :  9  f.)  at  Fair  Havens, 
where  the  centurion5  called  a  council  to  determine  what  to  do 
now  that  it  was  so  late  in  the  season,  for  "the  Fast  was  already 
gone  by"  (27:9),  the  Great  Day  of  Atonement,  about  Octo 
ber  5  in  A.  D.  59,  and  it  was  now  necessary  either  to  spend 
the  winter  in  Fair  Havens  or  to  find  a  better  harbor  like  Phoenix 
near  by  in  Crete  (27:12).  Luke  does  not  mention  that  it 
was  a  formal  council,  but  Ramsay6  feels  sure  that  one  was 
held  else  Paul  would  not  have  dared  to  offer  his  advice.  Prob 
ably  Paul,  though  not  Luke,  was  invited  to  the  council  because 
of  his  prominence.  Those  next  to  the  centurion  in  rank  were 
"the  pilot7  and  captain8  of  the  ship"  (27: 11),  and  not  "the 
master  and  owner  of  the  ship,"  as  even  the  Revised  Version 
has  it.  The  captain  and  sailing-master  (pilot)  were  merely 
advisers  of  the  centurion  in  this  council.  Paul  gave  his  advice 
with  his  warning  and  prophecy  along  the  line  of  common  sense 
and  experience,  but  he  was  brushed  aside  as  not  a  technical 
expert.  Preachers  are  not  credited  with  business  sense,  but 
he  laughs  best  who  laughs  last.  The  centurion  found  the  soft 
south  wind  proof  of  his  wisdom  and  set  sail  (27:  13).  The 
sequel  justifies  Paul  up  to  the  hilt,  though  he  remained  quiet 
till  neither  sun  nor  stars  had  shone  upon  the  ship  for  many 
days,  and  all  hope  of  being  saved  was  now  taken  away  and 

1  Rackham,  Acts,  476.  2  <JxXav6pa>™>?  (Acts  27  :  3). 

3  axeipa  ZspaaTTj  (27  : 1),  "the  troop  of  the  Emperor,"  Ramsay  calls  it 
(St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  315),  in  popular  Greek  language. 

4  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  316.  |  5  IxaTovdcpxT]?. 

6  Op.  ciL,  p.  323.  7  xupepv^tTjs,  our  "governor." 

8  va6x)oqpo<;.  Ramsay,  op.  tit.  (p.  324),  shows  by  inscriptions  that 
e[xxopoq  is  the  name  for  "owner"  of  the  ship  and  va&xXTjpoq  "captain." 
Knowling,  in  loco,  agrees  with  Ramsay,  though  Breusing  argues  for 
"owner "for  va6xXijpo<;. 


they  had  been  long  without  food  (27 :  20).  Then  he  was  able 
to  say  with  telling  effect:  "I  told  you  so."  But  he  did  it 
courteously  and  aimed  to  help  the  despairing  company.  He 
urged  courage  and  confidence  in  God,  who  will  spare  their 
lives,  though  the  ship  will  be  lost,  as  an  angel  of  God  has 
shown  him.  Paul  himself  is  to  stand  before  Csesar,  and  God 
has  spared  them  in  answer  to  his  prayers  (27 :  21-26).  It  is  a 
crowning  moment  for  Paul.  From  henceforth  he  is  the  real 
master  of  the  company.  All  now  look  to  Paul  for  light  and 

Once  again  Paul  stepped  to  the  front  to  expose  the  dastardly 
plot  of  the  sailors  to  escape  in  the  life-boat  and  to  leave  the 
ship  and  all  on  board  to  the  mercy  of  the  storm  (27 : 30-32). 
Now  the  centurion  was  quick  to  hearken  to  Paul  and  he  had 
the  soldiers  "cut  away  the  ropes  of  the  boat,  and  let  her  fall 

Once  more  as  they  waited  for  dawn  on  the  f ourteentlu  day 
Paul  urged  that  they  break  their  long  fast  and  eat  something, 
appetite  or  no  appetite,  so  as  to  have  strength  for  the  work 
of  rescue,  promising  that  God  would  spare  all  their  lives 
(27:33-36).  Thus  he  restored  the  courage  of  all.  "Then 
were  they  all  of  good  cheer,  and  themselves  also  took  of  food." 

Paul  was  never  more  Luke's  hero  than  on  these  great  occa 
sions.  Rackham1  thinks  that  Luke  also  meant  to  draw  a 
spiritual  lesson  in  the  obvious  parallel  between  the  experience 
of  Paul  to  that  of  Jonah  in  the  Old  Testament,  with  the  differ 
ence  that  the  New  Testament  prophet  of  the  Gentiles,  unlike 
Jonah,  was  obedient  to  the  heavenly  vision,  and  did  not  bring 
on  the  storm,  but,  rather,  was  the  reason  for  the  rescue  of  all 
on  board.  The  glory  of  the  occasion  was  that  Paul  so  led  the 
crew  and  passengers  to  trust  God  and  to  be  courageous  that 
"they  all  escaped  to  the  land"  (27:44).  One  may  think  as 
he  will  about  the  parallel  to  Jonah,  but  there  is  no  dispute*as 
to  the  dignity  of  Paul's  bearing  throughout  the  whole  voyage. 
His  conduct  on  the  island  of  Malta  was  of  a  piece  with  that 
on  board  the  ship.  Paul  won  power  with  the  barbarians  as 
he  had  gained  power  on  the  ship  (28 : 1-10). 

4.  The  Language  of  a  Cultivated  Landsman. — The  autoptic 
character  of  Luke's  narrative  is  obvious  to  all.  And  yet,  in 
the  main,  he  "regularly  uses  the  terms  of  educated  conversa- 

* Ads,  p.  477, 


tion,  not  the  strict  technical  names. "  l  Lieutenant  Edwin 
Smith  notes  that  "St.  Luke  fails  to  make  any  reference  to  the 
condition  of  the  ship  (on  the  arrival  at  Fair  Havens),  an  omis 
sion  which  a  real  sailor  would  not  have  made."  2  Lieutenant 
Smith,  of  Toronto,  was  in  command  of  a  patrol  ship  that 
patrolled  from  Dunkirk  to  Zeebrugge  and  assisted  in  putting 
up  a  smoke-screen  for  the  monitors  during  the  bombardment 
of  Zeebrugge.  From  November,  1918,  to  March,  1919,  he 
was  in  the  Mediterranean  service.  He  spent  some  time  with 
his  ship  in  Valetta  harbor  in  the  island  of  Malta,  "within  ten 
miles  of  the  very  spot  where  this,  the  most  famous  shipwreck 
in  the  world's  history,  took  place."  3  Hence  his  interest  in 
Luke's  narrative. 

Smith,  of  Jordanhill,4  says  that  "although  his  descriptions 
are  accurate,  they  are,  as  I  have  already  observed,  unprofes 
sional."  Smith  explains  what  he  means  by  "unprofessional": 
"The  seaman  in  charge  of  the  ship  has  his  attention  perpetu 
ally  on  the  stretch,  watching  every  change  or  indication  of  a 
change  of  wind  or  weather.  He  is  obliged  to  decide  on  the 
instant  what  measures  must  be  taken  to  avail  himself  of  favor 
able  changes  or  to  obviate  the  consequences  of  unfavorable 
ones.  Hence  in  describing  them  he  naturally  dwells  upon 
cause  and  effect.  He  tells  us  not  only  what  he  has  done,  but 
why  it  was  done."  We  do  not  see  this  seaman's  interest  in  the 
technical  matters.  The  landsman  notes  what  the  seaman 
would  take  for  granted  and  omits  scientific  details  for  which 
he  would  care  most.  "Now  these  are  exactly  the  peculiarities 
which  characterize  the  style  of  St.  Luke  as  a  voyage-writer."  5 
This  judgment  can  be  shown  to  be  correct  by  ample  illustra 

Luke  speaks  of  loosing  the  bands  of  the  rudders  (27:40), 
but  does  not  tell  how  it  was  fastened.  He  speaks  of  hoisting 
the  boat  on  board  (27:16)  with  difficulty,  but  does  not  say 
what  the  difficulty  was.  He  gives  picturesque  details  that 
interest  the  general  reader  like  the  frequent  allusions  to  the 
wind,  "because  the  winds  were  contrary"  (27:4),  "the  wind 
not  farther  suffering  us"  (27:7),  evidently  the  northwest  wind, 
though  he  does  not  say  so.  He  mentions  the  south  wind 

1  Ramsay,  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  315. 

2  Homiletic  Review,  August,  1919,  p.  104. 

8  Op.  cit.,  p.  102.  «  Op.  cit.,  p.  21.  B  Op.  tit.,  p.  21. 


(27 : 13)  and  the  sudden  Euraquilo  or  E.  N.  E.  wind  that  "beat 
down  from  it  (Crete)  and  caught  the  ship"  (27 : 14  f.).  Ram 
say1  quotes  a  ship-captain  who  told  him  his  experience  in  the 
Cretan  waters:  "The  wind  comes  down  from  those  mountains 
fit  to  blow  the  ship  out  of  the  water."  The  mountains  tower 
seven  thousand  feet  high  and  the  sudden  squall  is  typhonic2 
in  violence.  The  ship  "could  not  face  the  wind"  (27:15), 
"look  the  wind  in  the  eye,"3  as  Luke  picturesquely  puts  it. 
The  effect  of  the  wind  on  the  waves  appears  often,  as  in 
27:27,  41.  This  E.  N.  E.  wind  evidently  blew  steadily  for 
fourteen  days  on  the  second  ship  as  the  northwest  wind  had 
blown  on  the  first  ship  and  the  second  to  Fair  Havens.  There 
is  some  doubt  as  to  what  Luke  means  in  27 : 12  about  the  har 
bor  at  Phoenix,  "facing  northeast  and  southeast,"  or  "looking 
down  the  southwest  wind  and  down  the  northwest  wind."4 
The  harbor  faces  east,  not  west.  The  language  is  that  of  sailors 
on  inbound  vessels,  as  they  sailed  into  the  harbor.  The  men 
tion  of  Syrtis,  the  quicksands,  the  rapid  measures  taken  for 
safety  and  the  drifting  before  the  wind  (27 : 15-17)  shows  that 
Luke  is  thinking  of  the  main  features  of  the  events. 

The  use  of  the  term  the  Sea  of  Adria  (27 : 27)  is  also  popular. 
The  technical  use  of  the  name  was  for  the  present  Adriatic 
Sea,  but  ancient  writers  sometimes  applied  it,  as  Luke  does, 
to  the  lower  and  wider  expanse  from  Malta  to  Greece.  The 
fear  and  treachery  of  the  sailors  is  a  human  touch,  as  is  the 
lightening  of  the  ship  of  the  cargo.  It  is  not  clear  what  Luke 
meant  by  "driven  to  and  fro  in  the  Sea  of  Adria"  (27:27), 
probably  the  tossing  of  the  waves  by  the  wind  as  the  ship 
neared  land.  The  beaching  of  the  ship  where  two  seas  met6 
(27 : 41)  probably  refers  to  currents  meeting  between  Falmouth 
Island  and  Malta,  where  "the  two  seas  continue  to  meet  until 
this  day."6  But  the  main  points  of  the  story  stand  out  in 
sharp  relief  and  the  four  stages  of  the  voyage  in  three  ships 
(Csesarea  to  Myra,  Myra  to  Fair  Havens,  Fair  Havens  to 
Malta,  Malta  to  Puteoli). 

5.  Technical  Terms  in  the  Narrative. — Luke  was  not  a  sailor, 

1  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  p.  327.  *  Tu<J>Gwx6<;  (27  : 14). 

3  dvTo4>0aXnecv  rep  <*v£(«p  (27  : 15). 

4  ^Xlxovra  xard  X$a  xal  xa-rd  xwpov.' 

6  e£?  T6icov  StWeXaooov  Ix^xeiXav  r?)v  vauv. 

6  Lieutenant  Smith,  Horn.  Rev.,  August,  1919,  p,  110. 


but  a  landsman.  And  yet  he  was  not  a  landlubber.  He 
loved  the  sea  and  knew  the  sea  by  experience,  else  he  could 
never  have  written  this  chapter.  No  study  of  books  could 
have  given  him  the  ready  and  accurate  use  of  technical  terms 
that  we  see.  Lieutenant  Smith1  holds  that  Luke  spent  years 
on  the  sea  as  a  traveller.  He  suggests  that  Luke  may  have 
been  a  surgeon  on  some  of  the  Mediterranean  vessels.  Luke 
knew  the  language  of  the  sea.  "We  sailed  under  the  lee  of 
Cyprus"  (27:4),  "keeping  northward  with  a  westerly  wind 
on  the  beam." 2  So  "we  sailed  under  the  lee  of  Crete"  (27  :  7), 
but  "running  under  the  lee3  of  a  small  island,  Clauda"  (27 : 16). 
"Here  they  ran  before  the  wind  under  the  lee  of  Clauda." 4 

The  officers  (27 : 11)  on  the  second  ship  are  the  pilot  or  sail 
ing-master  or  steersman,5  and  the  captain.  These  are  both 
under  the  control  of  the  centurion.  The  sailors6  (27 : 27,  30) 
detected  the  nearness  of  land  by  the  soundings.  The  ship  is 
called  by  the  old  classic  Greek  word7  only  once  (27:41)  and 
it  occurs  here  alone  in  the  New  Testament.  The  skiff  or  life 
boat  was  towed  behind. 

The  word  for  the  gear8  or  sail  (27 : 17)  which  was  lowered 
in  the  storm  was  used  of  the  sheet  seen  by  Peter  in  his  vision 
at  Joppa  (10:11).  There  was  another  word  for  the  small 
foresail9  which  was  hoisted  up  to  the  wind  in  time  of  storm 
(27 : 40).  Roman  ships  did  not  usually  have  a  sail  at  the 
stern.10  The  large  mainsail  was  fastened  to  a  long  yard.  It 
was  reefed11  in  time  of  storm:  "We  gave  way  to  it  and  were 
driven"  (27:15).  Robinson12  thinks  that  Paul  may  have 
made  sails  as  well  as  tents,  and  may  have  thus  earned  his 
passage  in  some  of  his  voyages.  Some  (Blass,  Breusing)  inter 
pret  "gear"  (27 : 17)  to  mean  cables  with  weights  attached  to 
retard  the  progress  of  the  ship.  Luke  does  not  speak  of  masts, 
though  they  are  implied.  The  Romans  had  three-masted  ves 
sels,  though  most  of  them,  like  the  corn-ships,  had  only  the 
mainmast  and  the  foremast. 

1  Op.  cit.,  p.  103.  2  Ramsay,  op.  cit.,  p.  328.     u-jcs<rcXe6ja[jiev. 

3  JixoSpa^vre?.  4  Ramsay,  op.  tit.,  p.  328. 

6  Called  6  e&e&vuv  in  Jas.  3:4.  6  vaOrat. 

7  vau?.    Elsewhere  xXolov  for  the  ship  (27 : 15,  30)  and  the  little  boat 
was  termed  ax&<j>Y)  (27  : 16). 

8  oxeuo?.  9  tbv  dpTd(jLo>va. 

10  J.  Smith,  op.  tit.,  p.  192.     »  !xtS6vTe<;  I4>ep6{ie8a. 
"Hastings's  Diet,  of  Ap.  Ch.  ("Ship"). 


The  word  "helps"  l  (27  :  17)  was  applied  to  cables  for  under- 
girding  and  strengthening  the  hull  of  the  ship  to  prevent  the 
ship's  timbers  from  straining  too  much  in  a  storm.  They 
were  used  either  transversely  amidship  under  the  keel  or 
lengthwise  from  stern  to  stern.  The  tackling2  of  the  ship 
(27  :  19)  included  all  the  ship's  necessary  furniture,  everything 
movable  lying  about  or  on  the  deck.  The  cargo  or  lading3 
(27  :  10)  was  wheat4  (27  :  38)  and  it  was  thrown  out  only 
toward  the  last.  The  ropes5  (27  :  32)  held  the  little  life-boat. 

The  ship  was  impelled  only  by  sail  and  not  by  rowers,  as 
many  of  the  Greek  ships  were.  The  only  paddles  were  the 
rudders6  (27  :  40),  which  were  braced  up  with  bands7  so  that 
the  anchors8  could  more  easily  be  lowered  at  the  stern 
(27  :  29,  40).  Four  anchors  are  here  mentioned,  but  others 
were  probably  for  use  both  at  the  prow  (27  :  30)  and  the  stern. 
Anchors,  now  of  iron  with  hooks  or  teeth-like  extremities  for 
gripping,  and  no  longer  mere  stones,  were  needed  to  keep 
the  vessel  from  dashing  upon  the  rocks.  As  soon  as  they  cast 
off  the  anchors,  the  vessel,  under  the  impact  of  the  wind,  made 
for  the  beach  (27  :  40).  The  anchors  from  the  stern  made  it 
unnecessary  to  turn  the  vessel  in  the  storm,  which  was  very 
dangerous.  Nelson  lowered  anchors  from  the  stern  at  Copen 
hagen.  In  Heb.  6  :  19  a  beautiful  use  is  made  of  hope,  as  the 
anchor  which  lays  hold  of  Jesus,  the  rock  of  our  salvation, 
out  of  sight  within  the  veil,  but  sure  and  steadfast.  This 
anchor  holds  in  every  storm. 

Each  ship  then,  as  now,  had  its  individual  ensign9  (28:  11). 
The  third  ship  in  this  memorable  voyage  in  which  Paul  and 
Luke  and  Aristarchus  embarked  for  Puteoli  from  Malta  had 
the  sign  of  Dioscuri10  (sons  of  Zeus)  or  twin  brothers.  As  a 
rule  the  sign  was  painted  on  the  prow.11  A  flag  usually  floated 
from  the  stern12  and  the  whole  hull  was  painted.  The  ancients 
may  not  have  used  camouflage,  though  ornaments  (a  swan  or 
a  goose  head)  were  painted  on  the  stern-post.  Sometimes 
eyes13  were  painted  on  the  prow  of  the  vessel  (27  :  15). 

1  $OTj0e(ai<;  e%p6)VTO  &xot/ovv6vT£S  rb  xXotov. 

2  axeu^.  3  <f>opTfov.    Cf.  Gal.  6  :  5. 
4  OITOV.                                                                  6 

8  dcyxupa?.  9  xapdtarj^ov. 

10  Aioaxo&pots.    Castor  and  Pollux.  u  ex  XP^PTJ?  (27:  30). 

12  iv.  xp6{Avrj<;  (27:29).  13  So  had  the  wind  eye  to  eye. 


The  sounding1  was  done  by  sounding-leads2  or  plumb-lines 
dropped  at  intervals.  Modern  sailors  follow  the  same  method 
for  telling  the  approach  of  land. 

It  is  a  wonderful  story  that  Luke  has  told  in  Acts  27.  He 
knew  the  lingo  of  the  sailors  and  was  at  home  on  the  sea.  He 
employs  fourteen  verbs  about  the  progress  of  a  ship,  and  all 
but  three  occur  in  Luke  alone  in  the  New  Testament.3 

Ramsay4  concludes  that  the  only  difficulty  that  remains  in 
Smith  of  JordanhuTs  identification  of  St.  Paul's  Bay  in  Malta 
as  the  scene  of  the  shipwreck  is  the  fact  that  it  is  not  now  a 
sandy  beach.  But  the  waves  may  have  washed  away  the 
sand  during  the  centuries.  It  is  a  wonderful  story  and  one  is 
content  to  leave  it  now  as  it  stands.  "We  have  seen  in  our 
examination  that  every  statement  as  to  the  movements  of  the 
ship  from  the  time  when  she  left  Fair  Havens  until  she  was 
beached  at  Malta,  as  set  forth  by  St.  Luke,  has  been  verified 
by  external  and  independent  evidence  of  the  most  exact  and 
satisfying  nature."5  What  more  has  one  a  right  to  demand 
of  Luke  or  of  any  historian  ?  This  chapter  alone  would  rank 
Luke  among  the  great  writers  of  the  world. 

3  J.  Smith,  op.  cit.,  pp.  27  f.  «  Op.  til.,  p.  241. 

6  Lieutenant  Smith,  Horn.  Rev.,  August,  1919,  p.  110. 



"Paul,  standing  on  the  stairs,  beckoned  with  the  hand  unto  the 
people;  and  when  there  was  made  a  great  silence,  he  spake  unto 
them  in  the  Hebrew  language"  (Acts  21 :  40). 

The  decision  that  Luke  wrote  the  Acts  does  not  necessarily 
show  that  the  speeches  in  the  book  are  authentic.2  This  sep 
arate  question  calls  for  special  inquiry. 

1.  The  Custom  of  Ancient  Historians. — We  have  the  example 
of  Herodotus,  Thucydides,  Xenophon,  Polybius,  Livy,  Josephus, 
Tacitus,  Dio  Cassius,  to  go  no  further.  These  writers  record 
numerous  speeches.  Are  they  verbatim  reports  such  as  a  mod 
ern  stenographer  takes  down  or  like  the  speeches  in  the  Con 
gressional  Record,  printed  even  if  not  delivered?  We  know 
that  the  ancients  did  have  a  system  of  shorthand.  Speakers 
then,  as  now,  would  make  notes  of  speeches  that  were  not 
written  out  in  full.  Part  of  the  business  of  advocates,  like 
Lysias  in  Athens,  was  to  compose  speeches  for  men  to  make 
in  self-defense  before  the  Athenian  assembly.  The  speeches  of 
Demosthenes  were  written  by  himself,  and  bear  the  marks  of 
the  most  elaborate  preparation  and  finish  to  the  last  detail. 
The  same  remark  applies  to  the  speeches  of  Cicero,  which  he 
himself  wrote  out.  But  the  funeral  oration  of  Pericles  does 
not  stand  upon  the  same  level  of  genuineness.  Thucydides 
composed  such  an  address  as  was  suitable  to  represent  the 
ideas  of  Pericles  for  the  occasion.  To-day  we  have  modern 
reporters  for  addresses  of  importance  that  are  not  in  manu 
script  form.  Percy  Gardner  says:  "We  know  very  well  that 
there  was  no  class  of  reporters  of  speeches  in  antiquity.  Nor  if 
there  had  been  would  they  have  reported  the  words  of  an 
obscure  itinerant  Jew."3  But  Luke  was  not  wholly  dependent 
upon  official  reporters  for  his  knowledge  of  the  various  ad- 

^omiletic  Review,  Vol.  80. 

2  M.  Jones,  St.  Paul  the  Orator,  p.  9. 

3  "The  Speeches  of  St.  Paul  in  Acts"  (Cambridge  Bible  Essays,  p. 392). 



dresses  that  he  has  preserved  in  Acts.  Still,  we  must  not  try 
to  hold  ancient  historians  to  the  precise  methods  and  aims  of 
modern  writers.  Gardner1  insists  that  ancient  writers  cared 
more  for  style  and  convention,  and  were  more  conventional 
when  they  were  composing  works  of  art.  "When  an  ancient 
historian  inserts  in  his  narrative  a  speech  by  one  of  the  char 
acters  of  his  history,  it  is  only  in  quite  exceptional  cases  that 
we  are  to  suppose  that  such  a  speech  was  actually  delivered, 
or  that  he  means  to  say  that  it  was  actually  delivered.  It 
was  a  regular  convention  of  historical  writing  that  the  his 
torian  should  express  his  views  of  a  situation  by  making  the 
chief  actors  in  that  situation  utter  speeches  in  which  it  is  ex 
plained."2  That  is  true,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  Luke  nec 
essarily  did  the  same  thing.  At  any  rate,  one  must  look  at 
the  facts  as  far  as  they  can  be  obtained.  Gardner3  refuses  to 
put  the  speeches  of  Paul  in  Acts  on  a  par  with  Romans  and 
Galatians  in  historical  value. 

There  were  three  methods  employed  by  ancient  writers  in 
reporting  addresses.  One  plan  was  to  write  a  sort  of  prose 
drama  with  free  composition  of  speeches  for  the  characters  like 
the  English  and  Roman  historical  plays  of  Shakespeare.  One 
sees  this  method  in  Herodotus  and  Tacitus.  Another  method 
was  rhetorical  rather  than  dramatic  and  is  seen  in  Thucydides 
and  Sallust.  Thucydides  frankly  acknowledged  his  practice. 
These  are  free  compositions  of  the  writer,  but  they  embody 
reminiscences  of  the  author  and  of  witnesses  of  the  events  who 
heard  the  address.  Machiavelli  as  late  as  the  sixteenth  cen 
tury  had  the  same  method.  Here  the  address  was  a  fact  and 
the  report  contains  a  modicum  of  the  real  ideas  of  the  speaker 
as  touched  up  by  the  writer.  Another  method  was  to  give  a 
condensed  report  of  the  address  such  as  we  find  in  the  Gos 
pels,  where  often  extracts  from  Christ's  sermons  occur  rather 
than  the  full  discourse.  There  was  freedom  in  the  rendering  of 
the  sense  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus,  though  the  substance  be  the 
same.  One  can  test  Luke's  own  method  here  in  using  Mark, 
the  Logia  and  the  other  sources  for  his  Gospel.  Gardner4 
thinks  that  each  writer  had  his  own  custom  in  the  matter. 
"  And  that  which  at  present  concerns  us  is  what  conventions  in 
this  respect  were  observed  by  Luke,  who  must,  as  has  already 

1  Ibid.,  p.  392.  2  Ibid.,  p.  393. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  392.  4  Ibid.,  p.  393. 



been  observed,  be  regarded  as  a  Greek  literary  man,  and  one 
of  very  great  talent." 1 

2.  Luke  as  a  Reporter. — One  class  of  writers  regards  the 
speeches  in  the  Acts  as  mere  rhetorical  exercises  without  any 
historical  worth  (Schmiedel,  S.  Davidson,  Bacon).  These  men2 
argue  that  the  picture  of  Paul  in  the  speeches  in  the  Acts  is 
contradictory  and  unlike  that  in  his  Epistles.  If  Luke  followed 
the  method  of  Herodotus  and  Tacitus,  we  must  not  appeal  to 
the  speeches  in  Acts  for  the  ideas  of  any  one  but  Luke  himself. 

Gardner3  holds  that  "Luke  in  his  use  of  speeches  stands  be 
tween  the  ethical  and  dramatic  tendency  of  Herodotus  and 
Tacitus  and  the  rhetorical  tendency  of  Thucydides  and  Sal- 
lust."  That  is  to  say,  Gardner  ranks  Luke  above  Herod 
otus,  but  below  Thucydides.  "In  the  Gospel  the  rhetor 
ical  bent  is  far  less  clearly  to  be  traced  than  in  the  Acts." 
That  is  to  say,  Gardner  considers  the  birth  stories  in  Luke  1 
and  2  to  be  "in  a  region  of  myth,"  "hymns,  very  beautiful 
and  very  Christian,  but  freely  composed  for  the  persons  in 
whose  mouths  they  are  put."  Gardner4  offers  us  this  consola 
tion  that  "if  so,  we  gain  a  very  high  view  of  the  extraordinary 
versatility  and  literary  skill  of  the  Evangelist."  He  thinks 
that  Luke  is  more  of  a  compiler  than  a  composer  in  the  sayings 
of  Jesus.  In  the  Acts  "the  circumstances  are  different."  "It 
is  impossible  to  deny  the  possibility  or  even  the  probability 
that  the  author  may  have  built  in  some  degree  upon  reports 
and  rumors  of  speeches  made  upon  striking  occasions  by  the 
leaders  of  the  Church.  But  the  language  is  certainly  Lukan." 5 
Gardner6  thinks  it  far  more  likely  that  a  careless  historian  like 
Luke  would  freely  compose  the  speeches  than  that  he  "would 
search  out  hearers  of  these  speeches  and  make  precise  notes  of 
their  recollections."  That  is  plausible,  but  it  is  wholly  a  priori, 
as  one  can  see,  and  rests  upon  a  theory  of  Luke's  historical 
worth  that  has  been  discredited  by  the  researches  of  Ramsay. 
Moffatt7  holds  that  "the  excellent  historical  sense  of  the 
author"  restrained  Luke,  "who,  while  following  in  the  main 
the  ordinary  methods  of  ancient  historiography  in  the  compo 
sition  of  such  speeches,  was  careful  to  avoid  moulding  and 

1  Ibid.,  p.  394.  2  See  Schmiedel,  "Acts"  in  Encycl.  Biblica. 

3  Op.  cit.,  p.  394.  4  Op.  cit.,  p.  394. 

5  Ibid.  6  Ibid.,  p.  395. 

7  Mr.  to  Lit.  of  N.  T.,  p.  306. 


shaping  his  materials  with  a  freedom  which  should  obliterate 
the  special  cast  of  their  aim  and  temper.  These  materials 
were  probably  furnished  in  the  main  by  oral  traditions." 
Certainly,  this  is  a  much  more  likely  picture  of  the  facts  than 
that  of  either  Schmiedel  or  Gardner. 

But,  after  all,  with  Luke's  own  account  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus 
in  the  light  of  Mark  and  Q,  one  cannot  help  wondering  why 
we  are  forbidden  to  think  that  Luke  followed  the  same  method 
in  the  Acts.  If  he  consulted  sources,  written  and  oral,  for  the 
addresses  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospel,  as  can  be  proven,  it  is  natural 
to  think  that  he  pursued  the  same  careful  research  in  the  Acts. 
He  made  selections  from  the  material  in  the  Gospel,  as  he 
apparently  did  in  the  Acts.  His  reports  in  the  Acts  vary  in 
the  degree  of  completeness,  as  in  the  Gospel.  We  know  that 
Luke  heard  some  of  Paul's  addresses,  which  he  reports.  He 
had  abundant  opportunity  to  consult  those  who  heard  others, 
as  we  have  seen  in  the  study  of  the  sources  of  the  Acts.  Luke 
was  in  touch  personally  with  James  and  Paul.  Philip  and 
Paul  heard  Stephen.  Mark  and  Philip  and  Manaen  heard 
Peter.  "The  speaker  in  the  earlier  part  may  represent  not 
untrustworthily  the  primitive  Jewish-Christian  preaching  of 
the  period." l 

Besides,  one  can  test  the  speeches  of  Peter,  James,  and  Paul 
by  their  Epistles.  No  one  claims  that  Luke  read  those  Epis 
tles  and  aimed  to  reproduce  their  style  and  teaching.  It  is 
admitted  on  all  sides  that  the  speeches  of  the  different  speakers 
in  the  Acts  differ  and  have  a  striking  verisimilitude  to  the 
probable  facts.2  If  Luke  composed  them  all,  he  was  a  remark 
able  literary  genius.  It  is  worth  while  to  examine  the  facts 
and  see  if  it  is  not  true  that,  while  Luke's  own  style  appears  in 
various  ways  in  the  condensed  reports,  after  all  the  reports 
faithfully  represent  the  substance  and  the  essential  language 
of  the  original  addresses. 

3.  The  Speeches  of  Peter. — Fortunately  there  are  a  number 
of  these,  such  as  the  address  to  the  one  hundred  and  twenty 
concerning  the  fate  of  Judas  and  the  choice  of  his  successor 
(1 : 15-22),  the  great  address  at  Pentecost  (2 : 14-39),  the 

1  Moffatt,  ibid.,  p.  305. 

2  Blass,  Ada  Apostolorum,  p.  11:  "Quo  intentius  has  orationes  inspexeris, 
eo  plura  in  eis  reperies,  quce  cum  sint  temporibus  personisque  egregie  accom- 
modata,  ad  rhetoricam  licentiam  scriptoris  referri  se  veient." 


speech  at  Solomon's  porch  (3 : 12-26),  three  before  the  Sanhe- 
drin  (4 :  8-12,  19;  5  :  29-32),  one  to  Ananias  (5  :  3-4)  and  one 
to  Sapphira  (5:9),  the  address  to  Cornelius  and  his  household 
(10:28-29,  34-43,  47),  the  defense  in  Jerusalem  (11:4-17), 
the  address  at  the  Jerusalem  conference  (15  :  7-11).  Here  we 
possess  data  sufficient  for  a  comparison  with  I  Peter  and 
II  Peter,  also,  if  one  does  not  reject  it  as  a  basis  of  comparison. 
Bigg1  in  his  excellent  Commentary  does  not  draw  any  com 
parison  between  the  language  and  theology  of  I  Peter  and 
Peter's  speeches  in  Acts.  He  thinks  it  likely  that  Silvanus 
polished  up  Peter's  Greek  in  this  Epistle,  and  as  Luke's  own 
style  appears  to  some  extent  in  the  speeches  the  comparison  is 
not  easy. 

And  yet  the  fundamental  ideas  in  Peter's  theology  appear 
in  his  speeches.  Peter's  speeches  reflect  the  new  light  and  the 
new  courage  that  came  with  Pentecost  and  that  shine  in  his 
Epistles.  It  is  probable  that  Peter  delivered  all  these  ad 
dresses  in  Aramaic,  as  was  his  later  custom,  with  Mark  as 
interpreter,  except  that  at  Pentecost,  where  Jews  from  all  over 
the  world  were  present,  and  that  at  Csesarea  to  Cornelius. 
These  two  were  probably  in  Greek.  Peter  was  bilingual,  as 
was  Paul,  though  he  was  far  less  at  home  in  the  Greek  than 
Paul.  If  Luke  made  use  of  Aramaic  sources  for  the  Gospel 
(chapters  1  and  2),  he  could  do  so  for  Peter's  speeches  when 
necessary.  Knowling  thinks  that  Luke  had  written  sources 
for  Peter's  speeches  besides  the  benefit  of  the  recollections  of 
those  who  heard  them.  We  know  that  Peter's  addresses  are 
not  reported  in  full,  for  "with  many  other  words  he  testified 
and  exhorted  them"  (Acts  2:40).  It  is  quite  possible  that 
Peter  himself  made  brief  notes  of  some  of  his  more  important 
addresses  after  they  were  delivered,  or  others  may  have  done 
so  at  Luke's  request.  Moffatt2  quotes  Overbeck  as  saying: 
"To  the  doctrinal  discourses  of  Peter  we  may  in  a  certain  sense 
grant  that  they  faithfully  represent  the  primitive  preaching  of 
the  Messiah  by  the  Apostles,  and  that  so  far  they  possess  a 
certain  originality."  That  is  a  very  cautious  statement  and 
far  short  of  the  whole  truth.  The  Christology  of  Peter's 
speeches  is  primitive  and  is  to  be  compared  with  that  of  Mark 
and  Q.  It  is  primitive  in  comparison  with  that  of  Paul's 
Epistles  and  of  Peter's  Epistles.  "It  is  clear  that  these  early 

1  P.  6.  2  Op.  tit.,  p.  305. 


chapters  give  a  picture  of  the  primitive  community  which  is 
quite  different  from  what  existed  within  the  experience  of  the 
writer,  and  Pwhich  is  in  itself  probable." l  The  speeches  of 
Peter  reproduce  an  early  stage  of  development,  just  as  the 
birth  narratives  in  Luke  1  and  2  are  the  most  primitive  things 
in  the  New  Testament.  There  is  no  doubt  whatever  about 
the  primitive  picture  of  Christianity  in  Acts  1-12,  where  Peter 
figures.  It  is  natural  to  think  that  Luke  drew  this  picture 
from  actual  data. 

4.  The  Speech  of  Stephen.— This  speech  (7 :  2-53,  56,  59)  has 
every  mark  of  genuineness.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  Luke 
could  not  have  gotten  a  report  of  this  address.  Paul  himself 
heard  it  (Acts  8  : 1;  26 : 10).  Philip  almost  certainly  heard  it. 
Either  could  have  reproduced  the  line  of  argument  for  Luke. 
Stephen  himself  may  have  made  a  full  outline  of  his  address 
in  Aramaic,  since  it  was  a  formal  defense  or  apologia.  There 
are  Lukan  turns  of  thought  in  the  report,  but  not  more  than 
is  natural  if  Luke  translated  an  Aramaic  document.  There  are 
in  the  speech  a  number  of  variations  from  and  additions  to  the 
Old  Testament,  some  of  which  appear  in  Philo.  Stephen  dis 
puted  in  Jerusalem  in  "the  synagogue  of  the  Libertines,  and 
of  the  Cyrenians  and  of  the  Alexandrians"  (Acts  6:9).  He 
was  a  Hellenistic  Jew,  like  all  the  seven  (6:5),  and  may  have 
been  from  Alexandria,  and  probably  disputed  with  Saul  in  the 
synagogue  of  Cilicia  (6:9).  It  is  not  necessary  here  to  survey 
the  points  where  Stephen  and  Philo  agree.  Rackham2  has 
presented  them  fully.  They  are  chiefly  extrascriptural  details, 
such  as  appear  also  in  the  Talmud  and  in  Josephus.  In  the 
ministry  of  the  angels  in  the  giving  of  the  ten  commandments 
(Acts  7:53)  Stephen  is  followed  by  Paul  (Gal.  3: 19).  But 
the  significant  thing  is  that  Luke  preserves  these  items,  which 
are  so  different  from  the  Old  Testament  and  from  the  rest  of 
the  New  Testament. 

The  speech  itself  fits  in  perfectly  with  the  picture  that  Luke 
has  drawn  in  the  Gospel  and  in  the  Acts.  Jesus  himself  was 
arraigned  before  the  Sanhedrin  on  the  charge  of  blasphemy, 
because  false  witnesses  were  bribed  to  say  that  he  was  going 
to  destroy  ,'the  temple,  with  the  pretense  that  he  could  build 
it  again  in  three  days.  Jesus  kept  silent  and  only  confessed 
on  oath  that  he  was  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  but  they 

1  Headlam,  Hastings's  D.  B.  ("Acts").  2  The  Acts,  pp.  99-102. 


crucified  him.  Stephen  made  a  formal  apology,  and  they 
stoned  him  in  a  rage,  lynched  him  like  a  mob,  as  they  tried  to 
do  to  Jesus  several  times,  and  probably  would  have  done  if 
he  had  made  a  defense  as  Stephen  did. 

The  inner  connection  of  the  spirit  of  Stephen  with  the  his 
tory  argues  for  the  authenticity  of  the  speech.  The  Twelve 
Apostles  had  trouble  from  the  Sadducees  because  they  pro 
claimed  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  while  the  Pharisees  held 
aloof.  Stephen,  himself  a  Hellenist,  was  the  first  to  see  the 
wider  reach  of  the  mission  of  Jesus,  that  not  only  included 
Gentiles  and  Jews,  but  treated  Gentiles  as  on  a  par  with  Jews. 
Stephen  saw  that  Jesus  thought  the  spiritual  nature  of  wor 
ship  independent  of  place  or  race,  as  Jesus  expounded  to  the 
Samaritan  woman  in  John  4.  The  Hellenistic  Jews  in  the 
synagogues  in  Jerusalem  saw  that  Stephen  robbed  the  Jews  of 
their  prerogatives  and  privileges,  and  bluntly  charged  him 
with  preaching  against  Moses  and  God.  Thus  quickly  Stephen 
had  created  a  revolution  of  which  he  was  the  victim.  He 
roused  the  Pharisees,  who  turned  on  him  as  they  had  on  Jesus, 
but  more  suddenly  and  more  fiercely.  Stephen's  passionate 
speech  is  the  longest  in  the  Acts,  as  long  as  any  three  of  Paul's 
sermons,  and  is  justified,  because  of  the  importance  and  sig 
nificance  of  it  to  Luke's  narrative.  Stephen's  career  marks 
the  second  stage  in  the  apostolic  history.  "He,  being  made 
perfect  in  a  short  time,  fulfilled  a  long  time;  for  his  soul  pleased 
the  Lord.  Therefore  it  hasted  from  the  midst  of  wickedness" 
( Wisdom  4;  13  f.).  ^ 

Stephen  is  the  bridge  (Rackham)  from  Peter  to  Paul  in  the 
interpretation  of  Christ.  Like  Peter,  Stephen  makes  Jesus  a 
second  Moses,  a  prophet  like  unto  Moses,  but,  unlike  Peter  at 
this  stage,  he  saw  beyond  the  temple  and  the  law  to  the  free 
men  in  Christ  among  the  Gentiles  who  would  come  to  Christ 
without  becoming  Jews.  Peter  saw  that  later  at  Joppa  and 
Csesarea  (Acts  10).  Paul  will  one  day  become  the  great 
champion  of  Gentile  liberty  against  the  Judaizers  (see  Gala- 
tians).  But  now  his  soul  raged  against  the  man  who  had 
struck  at  the  glory  of  Moses,  as  he  thought.  Some  day  Paul 
will  find  the  true  Israel  in  those  very  Gentiles  (Romans  9-11). 
At  Athens  Paul  will  expound  eloquently  to  the  cultured  Greeks 
the  very  gospel  that  God  dwells  not  in  temples  made  with 
hands,  for  which  he  helped  to  stone  Stephen  now.  Stephen 


appealed  to  the  covenant  with  Abraham  before  the  law,  as 
Paul  will  do  in  Gal.  3  : 17.  Stephen  finally  turned  on  the  stiff- 
necked  and  uncircumcised  Jews  who  always  resisted  the  Holy 
Spirit  (7 : 51),  precisely  as  Paul  will  one  day  turn  away  from 
the  Jews  to  the  Gentiles  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia  (13 : 46)  and  at 
Corinth  (18:6).  "If  Stephen  had  not  prayed,  Paul  had  not 
preached."  Paul  finally  took  up  the  torch  of  Stephen  and 
passed  it  on.  Peter  will  preach  the  same  glorious  message, 
also.  Stephen  was  the  man  of  vision,  who  saw  the  full  truth 
ahead  of  his  time  and  dared  to  proclaim  it. 

Luke  has  given  the  trial  and  defense  of  Stephen  a  dramatic 
setting  and  has  shown  the  historian's  insight  in  the  way  that 
he  has  presented  the  whole  story.  The  speech  bears  every 
mark  of  a  real  report.  It  is  full  of  life  and  power.  It  left  its 
mark  on  Paul.  It  blazed  the  way  for  the  future  expansion  of 
Christianity.  It  broke  the  shackles  of  Judaism.  It  defied 
Pharisaism.  It  flashed  before  the  Jewish  world  the  heart  of 
Christ's  message  and  mission  to  the  whole  wide  world. 

5.  The  Speech  of  James. — In  Acts  15 : 13-21  Luke  has  a 
speech  delivered  by  James,  the  brother  of  Jesus,  who  presided 
over  the  conference  in  Jerusalem.  In  15 :  23-29  he  gives  the 
circular  epistle  drawn  up  apparently  by  James  and  adopted  by 
the  conference  and  sent  to  Antioch  by  Judas  and  Silas,  along 
with  Paul  and  Barnabas  (15 : 22  f.),  and  later  carried  by  Paul 
and  Silas  to  the  churches  of  Galatia  (15 : 4).  It  was  common 
enough  to  send  a  formal  epistle  by  messengers  or  "apostles," 
as  Paul  did  (cf .  II  Cor.  8 : 23)  and  as  the  churches  did.  The 
Second  Book  of  Maccabees  begins  with  a  letter  about  the  puri 
fication  of  the  temple.  It  was  easy  enough  for  Luke  to  obtain 
a  copy  of  this  circular  epistle,  since  so  many  were  distributed 
to  the  churches.  But  this  epistle  embodied  the  resolution  of 
James  in  his  address,  and  was  almost  certainly  written  by 
James  and  read  to  the  conference  for  their  indorsement.  In 
the  epistle  the  order  is  "Barnabas  and  Paul"  (15:  25),  for  in 
Jerusalem  it  is  still  "our  beloved  brother  Barnabas"  who  has 
more  influence  with  the  Christians  then  than  Paul.  In  Galatia 
and  Antioch  it  had  already  become  "  Paul  and  Barnabas." 

The  style  of  the  epistle  and  the  speech  of  James  is  the  same. 
James  calls  Peter  "Symeon,"  the  Aramaic  form  of  Simon,  seen 
also  in  II  Peter  1:1.  James  indorses  the  speech  of  Peter  and 
proves  by  Scripture  that  Peter  is  right.  James  shows  the 


same  kind  of  practical  wisdom  in  his  speech1  which  settles  the 
controversy  with  freedom  for  the  Gentiles  and  in  harmony 
with  the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  in  a  way  to  satisfy  all 
Jewish  Christians  save  the  extreme  Judaizers.  It  was  a  real 
eirenicon,  but  no  half-way  compromise,  and  is  strikingly  like 
the  discussion  in  the  Epistle  of  James  (1:5;  3  : 10-18).  Luke 
was  with  James  (Acts  21 : 18  f.)  and  would  have  no  trouble  in 
getting  the  speech  of  James  and  the  circular  epistle  to  which 
James  refers  (21 : 25),  practically  claiming  to  be  the  author  of 
the  letter:  "We  wrote,  giving  judgment."  James  may  have 
delivered  his  speech  in  Aramaic,  but  he  knows  Greek  well,  as 
his  Epistle  shows.  If  Luke  translated  the  speech  and  the  cir 
cular  letter,  that  would  explain  any  Lukan  traits  discernible 
in  them. 

The  Epistle  of  James  shows  striking  similarities  to  the  speech 
of  James  and  the  circular  letter  written  by  James.  Mayor2 
says:  "I  cannot  but  think  it  a  remarkable  coincidence  that, 
out  of  two  hundred  and  thirty  words  contained  in  the  speech 
and  the  circular,  so  many  should  reappear  in  our  Epistle, 
written  on  a  totally  different  subject."  It  is  possible  that  the 
Epistle  of  James  was  written  before  the  conference  in  Jeru 
salem.3  If  so,  James  has  written  the  first  Epistle  which  has 
come  down  to  us,  unless  Galatians  comes  earlier,  which  I 
consider  quite  unlikely.  The  circular  letter,  also  written  by 
James,  would  then  be  the  second  Epistle  preserved  for  us. 
The  Epistle  of  James  bears  a  resemblance  to  the  Cynic  dia 
tribe,4  but  the  Jews  were  long  familiar  with  this  form  of  lit 
erature.5  Once  more  the  data  fit  all  the  known  facts,  without 
saying  that  Luke  made  up  the  speech  of  James  and  the  circu 
lar  letter. 

6.  The  Speeches  of  Paul. — These  addresses  are  the  most 
important  items  on  this  phase  of  the  subject.  They  are  the 
basis  of  special  treatises  by  Bethge,6  Percy  Gardner7  and 
M.  Jones.8  We  may  agree  at  once  that  these  speeches  of  Paul 

1  Rackham,  Acts,  p.  254.  z  Comm.  on  James,  p.  Hi. 

3  Robertson,  Practical  and  Social  Aspects  of  Christianity,  p.  35. 

4  Ropes,  Ep.  of  James,  p.  16. 

6  Cf.  letters  in  II  Chron.  21 : 12;  30 : 1;  32 : 17;  Jer.  29  : 1,  25. 

6  Die  paulinischen  Reden. 

7  "The  Speeches  of  St.  Paul  in  Acts"  (Cambridge  Biblical  Essays,  pp. 

8  St.  Paid  the  Orator. 


in  Acts  must  all  be  examined  separately,  and  that  they  do  not 
necessarily  stand  on  the  same  level  in  point  of  proof  as  to 
authenticity.  Bethge1  argues  that  the  speeches  of  Paul  all 
show  the  marks  of  an  eye-witness.  We  may  agree  with  Gard 
ner2  that  the  speech  to  the  elders  of  Ephesus  at  Miletus  (Acts 
20 : 18-35)  has  the  best  claim  of  all  to  be  historic.  But  that 
admission  does  not  discredit  the  others  as  Gardner  thinks. 
He  holds  the  speech  at  Athens  (17:22-31)  to  be  "the  least 
authentic  of  the  Pauline  discourses  in  Acts."  That  is  pre 
cisely  the  point  to  be  examined.  It  is  plain  that  the  speeches 
of  Paul  in  Acts  are  only  a  small  selection  of  an  immense  num 
ber  of  addresses  made  by  Paul.3  It  is  true,  also,  that  Luke 
has  chosen  the  occasions  for  the  speeches  which  he  does  give, 
so  "as  to  bring  into  strong  relief  the  various  sides  of  his  min 
istry  and  of  his  doctrine." 4  But  it  is  just  as  easy  to  suppose 
that  Luke,  being  with  Paul  in  Rome  when  he  wrote  the  Acts, 
drew  upon  Paul's  memory  and  upon  Paul's  notes  and  outlines 
of  his  discourses  as  to  imagine  that  Luke  made  a  free  composi 
tion  of  Paul's  addresses  for  the  purpose  of  representing  Paul 
properly  on  various  occasions.  To  me  it  is  far  simpler  and 
more  natural  to  conceive  that  Luke  followed  his  usual  plan  of 
using  all  available  data  for  his  narrative.  It  is  hard  to  see 
why  he  should  pass  Paul  by  in  the  matter  of  his  own  speeches, 
which  he  would  surely  wish  to  win  Paul's  sanction. 

One  must  not  make  too  much  of  Paul's  reference  to  the 
charge  of  his  enemies  in  Corinth  that  "his  speech  is  of  no 
account"  (II  Cor.  10 : 10),  as  if  Luke  had  to  write  out  eloquent 
addresses  for  Paul  on  the  set  occasions  in  the  Acts.  Paul  him 
self  did  make  disclaimers  of  rhetorical  oratory  after  the  order 
of  the  Greek  dialectic.5  He  preached  the  Gospel  "not  in  wis 
dom  of  words"  (I  Cor.  1 : 17)  and  "my  speech  and  my  preach 
ing  were  not  in  persuasive  words  of  wisdom"  (I  Cor.  2:4). 
That  is,  from  the  standpoint  of  the  false  taste  of  the  Corin 
thians,  some  of  whom  later  made  the  very  charges  against 
him.  But  we  have  abundant  proof  of  Paul's  real  power  of 
speech  in  his  Epistles.  There  is  no  lack  of  passion  and  of 
power  in  them  and,  at  times,  Paul  rises  to  the  heights  of  real 

1  Die  pavlinischen  Reden,  p.  174. 

2  Cambridge  Biblical  Essays,  p.  401. 

3  M.  Jones,  St.  Paul  the  Orator,  p.  3. 

4  Gardner,  op.  cit.,  p.  395.  *  Jones,  op.  tit.,  p.  2. 


eloquence  (cf.  I  Cor.  13,  15;  Romans  8;  Phil.  3).  There  is 
variety  in  the  style  of  Paul's  Epistles  according  to  subject- 
matter  and  time  and  mood.  It  is  no  surprise,  therefore,  to 
find  like  adaptations  in  his  addresses  to  time  and  place  and 
theme.  Paul  spoke,  as  he  wrote,  to  the  audience  before  him. 
He  went  after  the  verdict,  though  he  always  applied  the  eternal 
principles  of  the  Gospel  to  the  topic  in  hand. 

Gardner1  thinks  that  two  influences  helped  Luke  to  make  a 
good  report  of  Paul's  speeches:  (1)  his  close  relation  to  Paul 
and  (2)  his  fine  dramatic  sense,  which  would  keep  him  from 
grossly  misrepresenting  Paul.  On  the  other  hand,  he  thinks 
that  Luke  was  handicapped  (1)  by  his  sense  of  the  conventions 
of  historic  writing,  and  (2)  "  looseness  and  carelessness  of  state 
ment,  which  almost  obliterates  for  him  the  line  between  fact 
and  rumor,  between  that  which  actually  occurred  and  that 
which  ought  to  have  occurred."  It  is  pure  hypothesis  to 
shackle  Luke  with  the  conventional  theories  of  Thucydides 
and  Josephus,  when  we  can  test  his  critical  habit  by  his  use 
of  Mark  and  Q.  The  alleged  "  carelessness "  of  Luke  lies  in 
the  imagination  of  Baur  and  Schmiedel.  The  facts  of  modern 
discovery  have  effectually  disposed  of  those  wholesale  charges 
as  we  have  already  abundantly  seen.  The  thing  to  do  is  to 
test  the  reports  of  Paul's  speeches  by  the  canons  of  criticism. 

Gardner2  divides  Paul's  speeches  into  two  classes:  (1)  those 
at  Antioch  and  Athens,  which  were  "free  compositions  of 
Luke";  (2)  the  later  speeches,  "which  would  naturally  be 
largely  affected  by  personal  memories."  Gardner3  denies  that 
he  has  taken  away  the  "value"  of  Paul's  speeches,  for  Luke 
knew  Paul's  views  so  well  that  "  his  fine  dramatic  sense  would 
render  him  apt  at  expressing  Paul's  usual  way  of  proceeding." 
Chase4  holds  that  Luke  had  actual  data  for  all  the  speeches, 
and  retained  Paul's  original  ideas,  though  he  may  have  given 
them  "greater  fulness  and  elaboration,  and  a  more  distinctly 
literary  flavor."  Per  contra,  one  must  bear  in  mind  that  the 
reports  all  bear  evidence  of  great  condensation.  Hence  Jones5 
is  right  in  contending  that  "while  they  betray  considerable 
proofs  of  editing  on  St.  Luke's  part,  in  the  way  of  summarizing 
and  epitomizing,  many  expressions  and  phrases  being  undoubt- 

1  Op.  tit.,  pp.  415  f.  2  Op.  tit.,  p.  396. 

3  Op.  tit.,  p.  396.  *  The  Credibility  of  the  Ads,  pp.  108  f. 

6  Op.  cU.,  p.  17. 


edly  Lukan,  the  utterances  are,  in  the  main,  those  of  the 
Apostle,  and  that  through  the  major  portion  of  their  contents 
we  are  listening  to  the  voice  of  St.  Paul  himself."  I  feel  sure 
that  this  is  a  very  moderate  statement  of  the  facts.  The  voice 
of  Paul  is  heard  in  these  addresses  as  the  voice  of  Jesus  comes 
to  us  in  Luke's  Gospel. 

This  judgment  is  reinforced  by  a  consideration  of  the  prob 
able  sources  of  the  speeches  of  Paul.  We  know  that  Luke 
was  present  at  Miletus:  "We  came  to  Miletus"  (Acts  20 : 15). 
So  he  heard  that  notable  address  to  the  elders,  the  noblest  of 
all  talks  to  preachers,  save  the  many  to  the  disciples  by  Jesus 
in  the  Gospels.  We  know  also  that  he  was  present  in  Jerusa 
lem  (21 : 17  f.)  where  Paul  spoke  to  the  mob  from  the  steps  of 
the  tower  of  Antonia  (22 : 1-21).  There  is  no  reason  for 
thinking  that  he  was  not  present  in  Caesarea,  where  Paul  spoke 
before  Felix,  Festus  and  Herod  Agrippa  II  (24-26).  Jones1 
argues  that  beyond  a  doubt  the  report  of  the  address  before 
Agrippa  is  "the  work  of  an  eye-witness,  or  a  copy  from  an 
original  source."  We  know  that  Luke  was  with  Paul  in  Rome 
(28 : 14, 16),  and  so  heard  Paul's  two  addresses  to  the  Jews 
there  (28:17-28).  Luke  was  also  with  Paul  in  Philippi 
(Acts  16),  but  he  was  not  present  in  Thessalonica,  Bercea, 
Athens  or  Corinth.  We  do  not  know  that  he  was  with  Paul 
in  the  first  campaign  in  south  Galatia.  Jones2  thinks  that 
the  extremely  vivid  narratives  and  reports  of  Paul's  extended 
address  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia  (13 : 16-41),  and  the  striking 
speech  in  Lystra  (14 : 12-17)  argue  for  Luke's  presence  with 
Paul.  But  that  is  very  uncertain.  What  we  do  know  is  that 
Luke  was  with  Paul  and  had  every  opportunity  to  obtain 
Paul's  recollections  or  notes  of  these  addresses,  which  he  him 
self  did  not  hear.  "The  trustworthiness  of  the  speeches  is, 
therefore,  in  some  measure,  guaranteed  by  the  fact,  in  the 
case  of  many  of  them,  that  they  are  reported  by  one  who 
actually  listened  to  them,  and  where  this  is  not  the  case,  they 
are  reproduced  from  materials  supplied  either  by  the  speaker 
himself  or  by  his  companions."3 

It  is  hard  to  overestimate  the  value  of  the  Pauline  speeches. 
"The  primary  Pauline  Gospel  we  owe  almost  entirely  to  the 
speeches,  and  from  this  aspect  they  are  invaluable.  By  means 

1  Op.  tit.,  p.  236.  2  Op.  ciL,  p.  19.  *  Ibid.,  p.  20. 


of  these  we  are  able  to  trace  the  Pauline  system  of  doctrine 
from  its  very  rudiments." l 

The  genuineness  of  the  speeches  alone  explains  Luke's  report 
of  two  addresses  so  much  alike  as  those  in  Acts  22  and  26,  and 
that  cover  the  conversion  of  Paul  already  adequately  told  in 
Acts  9.  Besides,  there  are  apparent  inconsistencies  on  minor 
points  in  these  three  accounts  of  Paul's  conversion  that  yield 
to  plausible  explanations  on  close  study,  but  that  are  unnatural 
if  Luke  composed  all  three  reports.  The  repetition  is  other 
wise  needless  and  the  discrepancies  superfluous. 

Ramsay2  calls  attention  to  the  marvellous  adaptation  of 
Paul's  speeches  to  the  local  atmosphere,  a  coincidence  hardly 
possible  for  a  writer  composing  at  a  distance.  He  cites  the 
address  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  Lystra  and  Athens  as  instances. 
Local  color  is  reproduced  precisely  in  each  case.  Ramsay 
notes  a  likeness  of  tone  in  the  speeches  in  Antioch  and  Lystra 
and  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  The  speech  in  Athens  is 
attacked  as  unlike  Paul  in  language  and  in  spirit.  But  it  is  as 
unlike  Luke  as  it  is  Paul.  The  Attic  flavor  can  be  proof  of 
Paul's  versatility.  The  appeal  to  natural  theology  occurs  also 
in  the  speech  at  Lystra  and  is  precisely  in  harmony  with  Paul's 
argument  in  Romans  1  and  2.  It  is  not  true  that  Paul  sur 
rendered  his  Gospel  message  in  the  presence  of  the  Stoic  and 
Epicurean  philosophers,  for  he  accented  repentance,  judgment 
and  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  from  the  dead.  He  probably 
meant  to  stress  other  great  doctrines,  if  the  whimsical  Athe 
nians  had  not  cut  short  his  address.  Ramsay3  notes  that  the 
address  at  Lystra  was  more  simple  while  that  at  Athens  before 
an  educated  audience  took  on  a  more  philosophical  turn.  But 
Paul  attacked  idolatry  as  courageously  in  Athens  as  in  Lystra. 
The  sermon  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia  is  remarkable  for  its  Pauline 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  instead  of  by  works,  and  for 
its  grasp  of  the  salient  points  concerning  the  life  and  death  of 
Christ.  By  means  of  the  speeches  we  see  Paul  the  preacher 
as  we  could  not  otherwise  know  him.4 

There  is  no  doubt  that  Luke  has  shown  consummate  skill 
in  reproducing  strategic  and  dramatic  staging  for  Paul's  vari 
ous  addresses.  That  was  his  task  as  the  historian.  But  he 
has  not  been  convicted  of  merely  following  the  conventional 

1  Jones,  ibid.,  p.  21.  2  St.  Paul  the  Traveller,  pp.  144  ff. 

3  Op.  cit.,  p.  147,  4See  Rosser,  Paul  the  Preacher. 


practice  of  inventing  the  discourses  for  Peter,  Stephen,  James 
and  Paul  which  cut  so  large  a  figure  in  his  book. 

The  very  diversity  exhibited  is  more  readily  explained  by 
the  use  of  actual  data  for  the  various  addresses.  The  short 
speech  of  Tertullus  (Acts  24 :  2-28)  was  made  in  public,  as  was 
that  of  Festus  in  25 :  24-27.  The  letter  of  Claudius  Lysias  in 
23  :  27-30  was  a  public  document.  It  is  not  so  easy  to  explain 
how  Luke  got  the  data  for  the  conversation  between  Festus 
and  Agrippa  in  25 : 14-22.  But  Luke  may  have  resources  of 
which  we  know  nothing.  It  is  really  amazing,  all  things  con 
sidered,  how  we  can  follow  his  tracks  for  nearly  the  whole  of 
the  many  discourses  that  adorn  the  Book  of  Acts.  "He  chose 
rather  to  include  the  speeches  as  we  possess  them,  with  their 
many  difficulties,  their  manifest  inconsistencies  on  some  points, 
because  they  represent  the  genuine  utterances  of  his  master." 1 
We  may  thank  Luke  for  this  fidelity  as  for  his  other  gifts  and 

1  Jones,  op,  tit,,  p,  291. 



"There  was  a  man  of  Macedonia  standing,  beseeching  him,  and 
saying,  Come  over  into  Macedonia  and  help  us"  (Acts  16:  9). 

This  man  was  probably  Luke,  as  we  have  seen.  At  any 
rate,  the  sentence  properly  pictures  Luke  as  a  man  of  his  times 
who  was  interested  in  the  world  problems  of  his  day. 

1.  The  Versatility  of  Luke. — We  cannot  have  come  thus  far 
in  the  discussion  of  the  writings  of  Luke  without  seeing  that 
he  was  a  man  of  great  gifts  and  of  fine  culture.  He  had  the 
opportunity  of  scholastic  training.  He  was  accurate  without 
pedantry.  Plummer1  terms  him  "  the  most  versatile  of  all  the 
New  Testament  writers."  He  was  a  man  of  genius  who  toiled 
at  his  task  like  a  plodder.  "The  humanism  of  the  Hellenistic 
world  pervades  him  "2  and  yet  he  is  simple  in  his  love  and 
loyalty  to  Jesus  as  Lord  and  Saviour.  He  is  a  skilful  physician 
who  reverently  sees  in  Christ  the  Great  Physician  for  both 
soul  and  body.  He  can  write  literary  Koine  like  Plutarch  and 
yet  closely  follows  his  Aramaic  sources.  He  hides  himself  all 
the  while,  and  yet  his  own  beautiful  style  crops  out  at  every 
turn.  He  has  "the  power  of  merging  himself,  all  but  his 
style,  in  the  persons  of  those  whose  story  he  is  telling." 3  He  is 
a  Greek  and  a  Christian,  a  friend  of  Paul  and  of  Theophilus, 
a  physician  and  a  preacher,  a  literary  man  and  a  friend  of  the 
poor,  a  champion  of  women  and  of  children,  a  friend  of  the 
good  and  of  sinners,  a  historian  and  a  poet,  a  mystic  and  a 
musician,  a  humanitarian  and  a  humanist,  a  traveller  on  land 
and  on  sea,  a  student  of  the  Scriptures  and  a  medical  mission 
ary,  a  harmonizer  of  science  and  of  theology,  the  interpreter 
of  Peter  and  of  Paul,  but  most  of  all  the  lover  and  interpreter 
of  Jesus  Christ,  a  man  of  prayer  and  of  faith.  "One  cannot 
help  feeling  how  delightful  and  lovable  as  a  man  he  must  have 
been." 4 

1  Comm.,  p.  xlix.  2  Gardner,  op.  cit.,  p.  387. 

3  Ibid.  4  Ibid. 



I  cannot  close  this  volume  without  some  expression  of  my 
own  admiration  for  Luke.  Even  Percy  Gardner1  can  say: 
"All  these  qualities  color  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  alike,  mak 
ing  them  exquisite  works  of  literary  art  and  great  monuments 
of  refined  Christian  feeling."  It  is  small  wonder  that  this 
man  so  won  the  heart  of  Paul  that  he  calls  him  "the  beloved 
physician."  He  has  won  the  heart  of  the  whole  world.  Ram 
say2  has  a  chapter  on  "The  Charm  of  Paul."  One  could  easily 
write  on  the  charm  of  Luke  who  charmed  Paul.  It  is  impossi 
ble  to  exaggerate  the  importance  of  Luke's  contribution  to 
Christianity.  Luke  and  John  and  Paul  and  the  author  of 
Hebrews  (Apollos?)  represent  the  acme  of  culture  in  early 
Christianity.  The  author  of  Hebrews  is  the  masterful  inter 
preter  of  Christianity  in  the  light  of  Judaism  and  as  its  suc 
cessor  and  superior.  John  is  the  rapt  and  clear-eyed  mystic, 
the  eagle  soaring  above  the  clouds  and  the  storm.  Paul  is  the 
mighty  and  masterful  protagonist  of  Christ,  the  "Illuminator 
of  Luke,"  as  Tertullian  calls  him.  Luke  is  the  versatile  scholar 
and  the  humane  and  gentle  scientist  who  has  painted  his  pic 
ture-gallery  of  Jesus  and  his  followers  on  broad  canvas  and  in 
bold  and  yet  delicate  lines. 

2.  Luke  a  Cosmopolitan. — Luke  was  a  citizen  of  the  world 
like  Paul  and  even  more  so.  Paul  was  a  Jew  with  a  touch  of 
the  Greek  and  of  the  Roman  who  became  a  Christian.  Luke 
was  a  Greek  in  a  Roman  world  who  became  a  Christian.  He 
was  without  the  racial  and  religious  prejudices  of  the  Jew, 
though  he  came  to  take  a  lively  interest  in  all  things  Jewish  in 
his  study  of  Jesus.  He  shows  great  knowledge  of  the  Septua- 
gint.  But  Luke  did  not  have  to  overcome  the  Jew's  hostility 
to  the  Gentiles.  The  Greek  and  the  Roman  were  not  taboo  to 
him  as  they  were  once  to  Peter  and  Paul.  "He  is  a  Universal- 
ist  who  would  have  all  men, to  be  saved,  and  for  whom  the 
difference  between  Jew  and  Gentile  does  not  present  itself 
with  the  same  rigidity  which  it  has  in  the  mind  of  Paul." 3  It 
is  Luke  who  records  the  parable  of  the  Good  Samaritan  who 
does  good  to  a  poor  wounded  Jew  by  the  roadside  whom  the 
pious  priest  and  the  Levite  pass  by  in  dread  of  contamination. 

For  this  reason  Luke  has  no  trouble  in  doing  justice  to  the 
Gentiles.  He  draws  a  kindly  picture  of  Gallio,  the  Roman 

1  Ibid.  2  Pauline  Studies,  pp.  25-45. 

3  fiaivJruYi*     t\*Y\     t**l       I-N      OQ-T 

*  ima. 

8  Gardner,  op.  cit.,  p.  387. 


proconsul,  of  Cornelius  and  Julius,  the  Roman  centurions,  of 
Gamaliel,  the  Pharisaic  leader  and  sage,  of  the  kindly  curiosity 
about  Paul  in  Athens.  "He  has  got  the  sympathetic  insight 
which  can  thoroughly  enter  the  feelings  of  different  parties — 
such  as  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  Hebraists  and  Hellenists; 
different  classes  of  society — Jews  and  Greeks,  the  populace  and 
better  classes,  local  magistrates,  Roman  officials,  Herodian 
princes;  different  interests — Pharisaic  rabbis  and  Sadducaic 
priests,  Ephesian  silversmiths  and  Jewish  sorcerers,  Roman 
aristocrats  and  Greek  citizens;  differences  of  culture — Athenian 
philosophers  and  rustic  Lycaonians;  different  professions — sol 
diers  and  sailors.  Then  this  appreciativeness  is  made  effective 
by  a  gift  of  style.  By  a  few  vigorous  touches  he  can  make  a 
scene  live  before  us."1  Carpenter2  devotes  one  chapter  to 
"S.  Luke  the  Universalist."  Hayes3  calls  his  Gospel  "The 
Gospel  for  the  Gentiles"  because  it  was  written  by  a  Gentile 
with  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews  in  mind. 

He  wrote  for  the  whole  Christian  world.  "Of  the  three 
synoptic  Gospels  this  is  by  far  the  most  catholic  in  its  sym 
pathies  and  universalistic  in  its  outlook."4  Luke  traces  the 
genealogy  of  Jesus  back  to  Adam.  He  is  fond  of  the  words 
grace,  Saviour,  salvation  and  evangelize.  He  makes  Simeon 
say  that  Jesus  is  "a  light  for  revelation  to  the  Gentiles"  (2  :  32). 
He  alone  calls  three  Roman  emperors  by  name  (Augustus, 
Tiberius,  Claudius).  Van  Oosterzee  says  that  Luke  raised 
"  sacred  history  from  the  standpoint  of  Jewish  national  nation 
ality  to  the  higher  and  holier  ground  of  universal  humanity." 
Hayes5  puts  it  thus:  "It  is  the  Gospel  of  the  real  humanity  of 
Jesus.  It  is  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  as  our  Brother-Man.  It  is 
the  Gospel  of  the  Kinsman-Redeemer  of  the  race."  It  is  the 
Pauline  Gospel  and  it  is  our  Gospel,  for  we  are  mostly  Gentiles, 
but  it  is  most  of  all  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  the  Saviour. 

Chesterton6  says  of  Jesus:  "What  nobody  can  possibly  call 
Him  is  a  Galilean  of  the  time  of  Tiberius."  He  was  that,  but 
he  was  much  more  than  that.  He  was  the  Son  of  Man  as  well 
as  the  Jewish  Messiah.  This  Luke  saw  clearly.  Carpenter,7 

1  Rackham,  The  Acts,  p.  xlvi. 

*  Christianity  According  to  S.  Luke,  pp.  212-227. 

3  Syn.  Gospels  and  Acts,  pp.  205-216. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  206.  6  Op.  eU.t  p.  253. 
6  Hibbert  Journal,  July,  1909,  p.  748.  7  Op.  cit.,  p.  223. 


however,  adds :  "  Some  of  the  Jews  themselves  had  formed  the 
habit  of  speaking  of  their  expected  Hero  as  the  Son  of  Man. 
Who  is  this  Son  of  Man?  God  is  His  Father,  and  the  holy 
nation  is  his  mother.  And  for  all  his  Jewish  outlook,  His 
national  patriotism,  and  His  Galilean  accent,  He  has  over 
leaped  the  bounds  of  nationality,  and  transcended  the  limita 
tions  of  station,  century,  and  sex.  .  .  .  He  has  created,  inci 
dentally,  and  almost  casually,  in  the  course  of  His  redeeming 
man's  soul,  the  only  true  democracy  that  is  ever  likely  to  exist." 
Luke  sees  and  seizes  the  universal  humanity  of  Jesus  and  traces 
with  masterful  pen  the  expansion  of  the  kingdom  of  God  from 
the  handful  of  Galilean  Jews  to  the  confines  of  the  Roman 
Empire  with  the  conquest  of  the  world  and  of  the  ages  as  the 
legacy  of  the  risen  Christ. 

3.  Luke's  Picture-Gallery. — But  Luke  is  no  abstract  dreamer. 
He  is  an  internationalist,  but  a  patriot  first.  He  is  not  carried 
awa^  by  ideas  to  the  neglect  of  personalities.  Luke  is  a  lover  of 
his  human  kind.  He  draws  pictures  of  persons  in  the  Gospel 
and  in  the  Acts  by  a  few  artistic  touches.  One  can  never  for 
get  the  picture  of  Zacharias,  of  Mary,  of  Elizabeth,  of  Simeon, 
of  Anna,  in  the  opening  chapters  of  the  Gospel,  or  of  Martha 
and  Mary  in  Luke  10,  or  of  Cleopas  and  his  companion  in 
Luke  24.  But  in  the  Gospel  these  all  radiate  around  Christ. 
Harnack1  devotes  a  chapter  to  Luke's  "Treatment  of  Persons." 
In  the  Acts  there  are  two  chief  characters,  Peter  and  Paul,  but 
many  others  of  second  and  third  rank  rotate  around  these. 
Harnack  sees  nothing  of  value  in  the  supposed  parallelism  be 
tween  Peter  and  Paul  in  the  Acts,  though  he  thinks  that  Luke's 
picture  of  Paul  is  much  more  distinct  than  that  of  Peter,  prob 
ably  because  Paul  was  so  much  better  known  to  Luke  and  be 
cause,  also,  Paul  was  a  bolder  figure. 

In  the  Acts  there  are  mentioned  one  hundred  and  ten  names, 
besides  groups  of  persons  whose  names  are  not  given,  "and  of 
these  how  extraordinarily  their  individuality  is  preserved."2 
After  all,  persons  are  the  most  interesting  data  for  the  his 
torian.  One  can  easily  recall  in  the  Acts  Peter  and  John, 
Ananias  and  Sapphira,  Annas  and  Caiaphas  and  Gamaliel, 
Stephen  and  Philip,  James  the  brother  of  John  and  James  the 
brother  of  Jesus,  Barnabas  and  Judas,  Simon  Magus  and  Bar- 
jesus,  John  Mark  and  Silas,  Ananias  and  Judas  of  Damascus, 
1  The  Acts,  pp.  117-132.  2  Rackham,  Acts,  p.  xlvii. 


Saul  also  called  Paul,  Sergius  Paulus  and  Gallic,  Cornelius  and 
Julius,  Dorcas  and  Lydia,  Timothy  and  Erastus,  Aristarchus 
and  Trophimus,  Agabus  and  Apollos,  Herod  Agrippa  I  and  II, 
Aquila  and  Priscilla,  Claudius  Lysias  and  Tertullus,  Felix  and 
Festus,  Drusilla  and  Bernice,  Demetrius  and  Publius. 

Of  this  number  Harnack1  notes  only  five  personages  of  sec 
ondary  rank  from  Luke's  standpoint  (Stephen,  Philip,  Barna 
bas,  James  and  Apollos).  He  observes,  also,  that  all  of  these 
save  James  the  brother  of  Christ  are  Hellenists.  Harnack 
thinks  that  the  emphasis  upon  Stephen  lies  in  the  fact  that  his 
message  was  the  bridge  from  Judaism  to  the  Gentile  world, 
and  that  this  motive  dominates  Luke  in  all  his  use  of  persons 
in  his  story.  -At  any  rate,  Luke  writes  his  book  largely  by  the 
use  of  biographical  sketches. 

But  it  is  not  a  haphazard  jumble.  He  has  two  heroes,  Peter 
and  Paul,  but  Paul  is  the  dominating  figure  of  Acts  next  to 
Christ,  whose  words  and  deed  overshadow  all  ( Acts  1:1).  ^ 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Luke  reveals  his  true  historical 
insight  by  his  estimate  of  Paul,  who  by  no  means  cut  so  large  a 
figure  with  his  contemporaries  as  he  does  with  us.  Luke  has 
the  love  of  the  disciple  for  his  master  in  the  case  of  Paul,  but 
he  does  not  mar  the  history  because  of  this  attachment. 
"Finally,  S.  Luke  has  demonstrated  his  artistic  skill  by  welding 
this  complex  variety  of  persons  and  places,  times  and  seasons, 
characters  and  circumstances,  into  one  whole — a  whole  in 
which  no  tendency  or  side-issue  dominates:  and  a  whole  so 
complete  that  we  entirely  forget  the  variety,  we  are  uncon 
scious  of  the  author  and  his  method." 2  We  are  swept  on  with 
the  onward  march  of  Christianity  from  Jerusalem  to  Rome. 
We  see  the  greatest  of  all  revolutions  transforming  Peter  and 
Paul  from  Jewish  pride  of  privilege  to  world  evangelization 
and  Christian  freedom  in  Christ. 

4.  Sympathy  with  Sinners.— We  judge  the  sympathies  of 
Luke  by  his  choice  of  material.  The  Christ  of  Luke  is  the 
friend  of  sinners.  A  physician  is  brought  into  close  contact 
with  the  outcasts  of  society,  those  who  are  "down  and  out." 
In  a  pre-eminent  sense  Luke  pictures  Christ  as  the  friend  and 
saviour  of  sinners.  The  matchless  parables  in  Luke  15  (the 
Lost  Sheep,  the  Lost  Coin,  the  Lost  Son)  are  told  by  Christ,  as 
Luke  explains  (15 : 1  f.),  because,  when  "all  the  publicans  and 

i  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  p.  119.  l  Rackham,  Acts,  p.  xlvii. 


sinners  were  drawing  near  unto  him  to  hear  him,'5  "both  the 
Pharisees  and  the  scribes  murmured,  saying,  This  man  receiv- 
eth  sinners,  and  eateth  with  them."  The  charge  was  true, 
gloriously  true  as  we  see,  as  Luke  saw,  but  as  the  ecclesiastics 
of  the  time  did  not  see.  "S.  Luke's  Gospel  is  a  Gospel  of  sac 
rifice  and  a  Gospel  for  sinners.  It  contains  the  word  'sinners' 
more  often  than  all  the  other  three  put  together." l  In  Luke 
7 : 37  the  woman  that  was  a  notorious  sinner  anoints  our 
Lord,  but  Luke  does  not  identify  her  with  Mary  Magdalene 
in  8 :  2  or  with  Mary  of  Bethany.  That  is  a  gratuitous  insult 
that  mediaeval  theologians  and  painters  have  cast  upon  these 
two  noble  women.  But  Jesus  did  forgive  the  sinful  woman 
who  showed  more  love  for  Christ  than  his  host,  the  proud 
Pharisee  (7 : 47).  Luke  rejoices  in  the  courage  of  Jesus,  as  in 
the  case  of  Zacchseus  (19:2-10):  "The  Son  of  Man  came  to 
seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost."  Luke's  Christianity 
is  for  the  bad  as  well  as  for  the  good,  to  cure  sin  as  well  as 
sickness.  Glover2  quotes  the  German  Jew  Borne  as  saying: 
"Christianity  is  the  religion  of  all  poor  devils." 

5.  Sympathy  with  the  Poor. — So  pronounced  is  the  sympathy 
of  Luke  with  the  poor  that  his  Gospel  has  actually  been  charged 
with  Ebionitism  and  with  class  prejudice,  with  the  modern 
"Soviet"  conception  of  class  domination,  the  poor  ruling  the 
rich.  That  is  not  true  at  all.  Luke  is  interested  in  the  rich 
(19 :  2;  23  :  50),  but  he  champions  the  poor  because  they  needed 
a  friend  (1 :  53;  2  :  7,  8,  24;  4 : 18;  6  :  20,  21;  7 :  22;  14 : 13,  22; 
16:20,  23).  Luke  reports  the  special  form  of  communism 
among  the  early  disciples  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  4  and  5),  but  he 
would  not  be  a  modern  syndicalist,  certainly  not  a  Marxian 
Socialist,  or  a  Bolshevist.  The  physician  sees  the  need  and 
hears  the  cry  of  the  poor.  "The  physician  who  works  only 
for  fat  fees  and  who  goes  only  when  summoned  by  the  well- 
to-do  may  make  his  fortune,  but  he  will  miss  his  greatest  pro 
fessional  opportunity  in  the  service  to  the  poor." 3  Luke  records 
Jesus  as  saying  at  Nazareth  that  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  had 
"anointed  me  to  preach  good  tidings  to  the  poor"  (4:18). 
Luke  has  simply  "Blessed  are  ye  poor"  in  6  :  20.  In  the  story 
of  Lazarus  and  the  wicked  Rich  Man  the  beggar  comes  out 

1  Carpenter,  op,  tit.,  p.  219. 

2  Nature  and  Purpose  of  a  Christian  Society,  p.  34. 
*  Hayes,  op.  cit.,  p.  237. 


ahead  in  the  end  (16 : 19-31).  No  fiercer  indictment  of  a  rich 
fool  was  ever  drawn  than  in  the  parable  of  Jesus  recorded  by 
Luke  in  12:16-21.  Luke  represents  Christ  as  inviting  "the 
poor  and  maimed  and  blind  and  lame"  to  the  supper  in  the 
parable  (14 :  21).  One  of  the  amazing  things  about  Jesus  was 
his  interest  in  the  poor.  This  great  fact  was  reported  to  John 
the  Baptist  as  proof  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah  (7 : 22). 

Certainly,  then,  Luke  believed  in  the  dignity  of  man.  Luke 
wrote  the  gospel  for  the  poor  that  Burns  sang.  "S.  Luke's 
conception  of  the  Church  was  that  it  was  a  body  in  which  the 
poor  and  needy  for  the  first  time  had  a  fair  and  equal  chance." l 
We  need  not  ask  whether  Luke  wished  to  abolish  slavery, 
though  he  may  have  once  been  a  slave  himself,  as  we  have 
seen.  Professor  Gilbert  Murray2  thinks  that  what  made 
Christianity  conquer  in  the  Roman  Empire  was  "its  intense 
feeling  of  brotherhood  within  its  own  bounds,  its  incessant  care 
for  the  poor."  We  see  that  in  I  Cor.  1 : 26-31,  where  Paul 
glories  in  the  choice  of  the  poor  by  God  to  confound  the  rich 
and  the  mighty.  Christ  calls  the  men  from  the  bottom  up. 
That  is  his  crown  of  glory.  There  is  no  doubt  about  Lute 
being  a  democrat.  He  traces  the  babe  in  the  manger  in  Beth 
lehem  to  the  ascension  on  Olivet.  Luke  was  a  democrat  who 
was  striving  for  a  spiritual  aristocracy,  not  of  money,  not  of 
blood,  not  of  privilege,  not  of  power,  but  of  character,  the 
brotherhood  of  the  cross  of  Christ,  that  is  still  the  hope  of  the 
world,  the  salt  of  the  earth.  Luke  does  not  teach  that  it  is  a 
virtue  to  be  poor,  but  a  poor  man  is,  after  all,  a  man,  a  man 
worth  saving,  a  man  who  may  be  rich  toward  God,  and  who 
may  enrich  man  by  the  noblest  qualities  of  manhood  and 
service.  "Even  when  Christianity  had  risen  from  the  work 
shop  and  the  cottage  to  the  palace  and  the  schools  of  learning, 
it  did  not  desert  the  workshop  and  the  cottage.  The  living 
roots  of  Christianity  remained  in  their  native  soil  and  in  the 
lower  ranks  of  society."3 

6.  Understanding  Women. — Christ  made  an  appeal  to 
women,  who  early  formed  a  band  to  help  support  him  and  his 
disciples  (Luke  8: 1-3).  The  rabbis  in  their  liturgy  thanked 
God  that  they  were  not  born  women.  But  Jesus  is  the  eman- 

1  Carpenter,  op.  cit.,  p.  204. 

2  Four  Stages  of  Greek  Religion,  p.  180. 

3  Deissmann,  Light  from  the  Ancient  East,  p.  404. 


cipator  of  women.  Luke  sees  this  truth  and  emphasizes  it. 
One  of  the  traditions l  about  Jesus  is  that  once  when  asked 
"When  shall  the  kingdom  come?"  he  replied:  "When  the 
two  shall  be  one,  and  that  which  is  without  as  that  which  is 
within,  and  the  male  with  the  female,  neither  male  nor  female." 
One  may  think  what  he  will  of  the  logion,  but  Paul  in  Gal.  3  :  28 
says  that  in  Christ  "there  is  neither  male  nor  female."  To 
the  women  of  Palestine  Jesus  appeared  as  their  sole  champion 
and  hope  because  he  treated  them  as  personalities  on  a  par 
with  men.  "Mithraism,  the  most  popular  of  the  heathen 
religions,  was,  like  Islam,  a  religion  for  men  only."2  The 
humanity  of  Christ  is  deeper  than  sex.  Christianity  made 
great  headway  in  the  first  century,  partly  because  of  its  pow 
erful  appeal  to  women. 

Luke  was  a  physician  and  was  brought  into  close  contact 
with  women  and  their  problems.  He  also  lived  in  Philippi  for 
some  years,  where  women  had  unusual  privileges  and  oppor 
tunities,  Macedonia  being  in  this  respect  far  ahead  of  Achaia 
or  Asia.  Luke  knew  how  both  Gentile  and  Jew  looked  down 
on  women.  He  saw  the  difference  in  Jesus.  So  we  have 
sketches  of  Elizabeth  and  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus,  the 
prophetess  Anna  and  the  widow  of  Nain,  the  sinful  woman  in 
the  house  of  Simon  and  the  woman  with  an  issue  of  blood, 
Mary  Magdalene  and  the  others  of  her  band,  Mary  and  Martha 
of  Bethany,  the  widow  with  the  two  mites  and  the  daughters 
of  Jerusalem,  the  women  at  the  tomb,  Dorcas  and  Mary  the 
mother  of  John  Mark,  Sapphira  and  Priscilla,  Drusilla  and 
Bernice,  Lydia  and  Damaris.  Luke  wrote  the  gospel  of  woman 
hood,  full  of  sympathy  and  tenderness,  full  of  understanding 
of  their  tasks  and  their  service.  Dante  describes  Luke  as  "  the 
writer  of  the  story  of  the  gentleness  of  Christ."  If  women 
have  understood  Christ  often  better  than  men,  it  is  in  part 
due  to  Luke's  representation  of  Christ's  interest  in  women. 
Christ  has  enfranchised  women  in  the  true  sense  of  spiritual 
privilege  and  prowess  and  service.  They  are  entering  into 
their  heritage  after  centuries  of  indifference  and  hostility. 
But  the  women  were  last  at  the  cross  and  first  at  the  tomb. 
They  have  been  loyal  to  Christ  through  the  ages. 

7.  In  Touch  with  Children. — The  good  physician  loves  chil 
dren  and  seeks  to  save  the  child  from  death  and  from  disaster. 
1  Ps.  Clem.,  xii.  2  Carpenter,  op.  cit.,  p.  217. 


The  hope  of  the  race  is  in  the  children.  The  real  wealth  of  the 
world  is  in  the  children,  who  give  promise  of  being  better  and 
of  doing  better  than  we  have  been  and  have  done.  Hayes 
observes  that  there  is  not  a  child  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  but 
that  is  not  quite  true,  for  Andrew  tells  Jesus  of  the  lad  with 
five  barley  loaves  and  two  fishes  (John  6:8f.).  Mark  and 
Matthew  both  tell  of  the  little  children  that  were  brought  to 
Jesus,  but  Luke  notes  that  they  were  "babes"  (Luke  18 : 15). 
Luke  alone  gives  the  raising  of  the  son  of  the  widow  of  Nain 
(Luke  7),  and  Luke  notes  that  the  epileptic  boy  was  the 
father's  "only  son"  (9:38).  Luke  tells  us  most  about  the 
birth  and  childhood  of  Jesus,  and  gives  us  the  only  glimpse 
that  we  have  of  the  boy  Jesus,  with  a  boy's  hunger  for  knowl 
edge  and  yearning  for  future  service,  this  boy  who  already  had 
the  consciousness  of  peculiar  relationship  to  God  his  Father, 
and  yet  who  went  back  to  Nazareth  in  obedience  to  Joseph 
and  Mary  to  toil  at  the  carpenter's  bench  for  eighteen  more 
years,  till  the  voice  of  the  Baptist  should  call  him  to  the  Jor 
dan.  No  one  who  did  not  love  and  understand  children  could 
have  so  graphically  pictured  the  boyhood  of  Jesus  in  this  one 
short  paragraph. 

8.  Spiritual  Insight. — Luke's  Gospel  makes  a  point  of  prayer 
in  the  life  of  Jesus.  He  gives  the  example  of  Jesus  and  the 
instruction  of  Jesus  on  the  subject.  The  Synoptic  Gospels  all 
tell  of  Christ's  praying  in  Gethsemane.  Luke1  does  not  men 
tion  the  praying  of  Jesus  given  in  Mark  1 : 35  at  Capernaum 
and  in  Matt.  19:23  (=  Mark  6: 46)  after  feeding  the  five 
thousand.  But  Luke  alone  notes  that  Jesus  prayed  at  the 
baptism  of  Jesus  (3 : 21),  on  his  first  clash  with  the  Pharisees 
over  forgiving  the  paralytic  (5 : 16),  before  choosing  the  Twelve 
Apostles  (6  : 12),  before  the  first  prediction  of  his  death  (9  : 18), 
at  the  transfiguration  (9 : 18),  before  teaching  the  model  prayer 
(11  :•!),  on  the  cross  (23  :  34,  46).  Besides,  as  Plummer2  fur 
ther  points  out,  Luke  alone  mentions  Christ's  special  prayer 
for  Peter  (22 : 31  f.),  the  special  command  to  the  disciples  to 
pray  while  in  Gethsemane  (22  :  32,  40) .  Luke  alone  gives  the 
parables  about  persistence  in  prayer  (11:5-13;  18:1-8)  and 
the  command  to  pray  "at  every  season"  (21 :  36).  The  para 
ble  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  publican  shows  the  difference  be 
tween  real  and  perfunctory  (and  hypocritical)  prayer 

1  Plummer,  Cowm.,  p.  xlv.  2  Ibid. 


(18 : 11-13).  Plummets  summary  proves  the  point  up  to  the 
hilt.  Luke  was  himself  a  man  of  prayer,  because  of  his  interest 
in  this  aspect  of  Christ,  who  practised  what  he  preached 
(11:9).  "If  the  disciples  of  Jesus  had  learned  to  pray  as 
their  Master  prayed,  their  victory  would  have  been  as  sure 
and  as  continuous  as  his  own." l 

Luke's  Gospel  is  not  only  the  Gospel  of  Prayer,  but  also  the 
Gospel  of  Praise.  Plummer2  notes  that  it  begins  and  ends 
with  worship  in  the  temple  (1:9;  24 :  53).  Luke  alone  gives 
the  Greeting  of  Elizabeth  (1  : 42-45),  the  Magnificat,  or  Song 
of  Mary  the  Mother  of  Jesus  (1 : 46-55),  the  Benedictw,  or 
Song  of  Zacharias  (1 : 68-79),  the  Gloria  in  Excelsis,  or  Song 
of  the  Angels  (2 : 14),  the  Nunc  Dimittis,  or  Song  of  Simeon 
(2:29-32).  Luke  is  fond  of  the  expression  "glorifying  God" 
(2 :  20;  5 :  25  f.;  7  : 16;  13  : 13;  17  : 15;  18  :  43),  "praising  God" 
(2:13,  20;  19:37;  24:53?;  Acts  2:47;  3:8f.)  and  "blessing 
God"  (1:64;  2:28;  24:53?). 

So  also  it  is  the  Gospel  of  Joy.  Rejoicing  is  mentioned  by 
verb  or  substantive  twenty-two  times  in  the  Gospel  and  the 
Acts.  All  through  the  Gospel  and  the  Acts  there  rings  the 
note  of  praise  and  joy.  The  hymns  in  Luke's  Gospel  have 
thrilled  the  heart  of  the  world.  The  Magnificat  "is  the  highest 
specimen  of  the  subtle  influence  of  the  song  of  purity,  so  ex 
quisitely  described  by  Browning.  It  is  the  'Pippa  Passes' 
among  the  liturgies  of  the  world."3 

Luke  is  fond  of  the  ministry  of  angels.  They  are  common 
in  the  Gospel  and  in  the  Acts,  where  they  are  mentioned 
twenty-two  times.  "Here  and  there  throughout  the  Gospel 
we  hear  echoes  of  angel  songs  and  catch  glimpses  of  angel 
wings." 4  To  be  sure,  some  would  term  this  trait  superstition 
and  lack  of  the  scientific  and  the  historical  spirit.  But  that  is 
a  superficial  attitude  toward  the  deepest  problem  of  humanity. 
The  nineteenth  century  saw  a  recrudescence  of  materialism 
under  the  influence  of  the  evolution  hypothesis.  But  this  very 
hypothesis  now  knocks  at  the  door  of  the  unseen  and  refuses 
to  be  satisfied  with  the  negation  of  Mill  and  Huxley  and 
Spencer  and  Haeckel.  Wistfully  scientists  of  the  twentieth 
century  are  looking  over  the  brim  of  eternity,  if  haply  they 

1  Hayes,  op.  tit.,  p.  259.  2  Comm.,  p.  xlvi. 

8  Alexander,  Leading  Ideas  of  the  Gospels,  p.  1 14. 
4  Hayes,  op.  tit.,  p.  264. 


may  catch  echoes  from  the  other  side.  The  wall  seems  thin 
at  times  to  those  who  have  loved  ones  who  have  passed  over 
to  be  with  Jesus. 

Luke  was  a  mystic,  as  every  real  Christian  is.  Scientist  as 
he  was,  he  had  not  lost  his  sense  of  wonder  and  awe  in  the 
presence  of  God  and  nature.  He  found  in  Christ  the  key  to 
the  mystery  of  life  here  and  hereafter.  Like  McKenna  (The 
Adventure  of  Death),  another  Christian  physician  of  to-day 
who  looked  to  Christ  with  a  scientist's  eyes  from  the  trenches 
of  France  and  Flanders,  Luke  saw  in  Christ  the  hope  of  the 
world.  He  gave  himself  with  utter  devotion  to  the  task 
of  recording  the  results  of  his  years  of  research  and  of  experi 
ence  of  Christ  in  his  own  life  and  in  the  lives  of  others.  He 
wrote  with  whole-hearted  consecration  of  his  great  gifts  and 
with  high  standards  before  his  eyes.  He  set  his  eyes  upon 
Jesus,  who  alone  makes  life  worth  while.  A  man  without 
spiritual  insight  has  missed  the  meaning  of  his  own  life  and 
the  meaning  of  the  world.  Luke  had  the  eyes  of  his  mind 
opened  (Luke  24:45)  by  the  vision  of  Jesus  which  he  saw. 
He  saw  Christ  and  he  saw  the  world  for  which  Christ  died. 


Abraham 187       Ananias,  the  high  priest 202,  221 

Achaia 28,  29,  175,  182,  195       Anna '. 104,  238 

Acts  of  the  Apostles:    Importance  Annas 234 

of ,  1  ff  ;  author — same  as  that  of  Antioch  in  Pisidia 21,  23,  128,  183, 

Gospel  of  Luke,  4  ff.,  30,  a  com-  184,  187,  192,  195,  228,  229 

panion  of  Paul,  6  ff.,  a  physician,  Antioch  in  Syria ...  5, 13, 17,  20,  21,  22, 

9  ff      27  ff  ,   65  f.,   90  ff.,    131  ff.,  23,  24,  56,  76,  86,  174  f.,  183 

Luke.  13  ff.,  30  f.,  52,  55;  Paul's  Antony,  Mark 167 

influence  in,  29,  77,  80  ff.;   date  Apocryphal  Gospels 45, 49,  142,  104 

of  composition,  30  ff.,  82;    opti-  Apollos 17,  24,  235 

mistic  note  of,  35,  36,  165;  place  Apostles,  the  Twelve 46,  49,  82,  98, 

of  composition,  37,  38.  80;   pic-  105,  110,  144, 172, 174  ff.,  200,  223 

ture  of  Christ  in,  38;   historical  Appian 121 

worth  of,  39  ff.,  46,  56,  77  f.,  89;  Aquila 13,  175,  235 

literary  method  of  author,  43 ;  Arabic  Gospel  of  the  Infancy 104 

chronological  order  of,   53,   54;  Aramaic  Document  of  Acts.  37,  84,  86  ff. 

character  portraits  in,  57,  234  f. ;  Aramaic  Sources  of  Luke  ..7,9, 18,  57, 

versatility  of  author,  57  f. ;   "we  107 

sections,    5,  7,  8,  14,  16,  25,  46,  Archelaus  (see  Herod  Archelaus). 

78  ff.,  87,  134;  sources — oral  and  Aretaeus 9,  24,  94 

written,  48,  76  ff.,  219  ff.;    sup-  Aristarchus  .  .  12,  13,  18,  26,  81,  83,  199, 

posed  Aramaic  Document  of,  37,  210,  235 

77,  84,  86  ff. ;  first  century  at-  Asia 29,  182 

mosphere  of,  78;  personal  expe-  Asia  Minor 40,  78, 124, 129, 179  f., 

riences  of  author,  78  ff.,  228;  un-  183, 187,  191 

fairly  treated  by  critics,  77,  79;  Asiarchs 188, 198  f. 

in  relation  to  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  Assos 206 

82  f. ;    first-hand    reporters   for,  Athenseus 24 

83  ff. ;  medical  matters  in,  98  ff .,  Athenodorus 25 

133  ff. ;  crowns  Jesus  king,  164  f. ;  Athens. . 24,  25,  81,  184, 188,  197  f.,  206, 

chronology    with    respect    to —  226,228,229 

Paul's  visit  to  Jerusalem,  171  ff.,  Augustine 143, 148 

death  of  Herod  Agrippa,  174  f.,  Augustus 119-124, 129, 157, 166  ff. 

expulsion  of  Jews  from  Rome, 

175,      Gallio's       proconsulship,  Babylon 66 

175  f.,  coming  of  Festus,  176  ff. ;  Bar-Jesus 234 

archaeological   and  geographical  Barnabas 1,5,  21,  23,  24,  26,  83.  84, 

accuracy    with    reference    to —  174  f.,  193,  234 

Roman  provinces,  180  ff.,  ethno-  Baur 27, 167,  227 

graphic  terminology,  182  f.,  col-  Bernice 204,  235,  238 

onies,  183  ff.,  Roman  citizenship,  Berosa 197, 198,  206,  228 

185  f .,  local  color,  186  ff . ;  chapter  Bethlehem  of  Galilee 120 

27 — its  value,  206  ff.,  its  accu-  Bethlehem  of  Judea 104, 106, 109. 

racy,  208  f.,  dominated  by  Paul's  118, 120. 125 

personality,  209  ff.,  its  language,  Bethsaida  Julias 140 

211  ff.,  213  ff.;  report  of  speeches  Bithynia 28,  29, 182 

of  Peter,  220  ff . ;  speech  of  Ste-  Borghesi 128 

phen,  222  ff. ;   speech  of  James,  Briggs 76 

224  f . ;  speeches  of  Paul,  225  ff .  Broughton 109 

Adam 157       Bunyan 147 

JEgae 24       Burrhus 177 

^Emilius  Secundus 128 

yEneas 100       Csesarea 22,  38,  39,  45,  47,  53,  75,  77, 

^Eneid 18  78,  80,  83,  84,  107,  113,  177  f.,  181. 

/Eschylus 207  202  ff.,  206,  228 

yEsculapius 24       Caiaphas 160,  234 

Africa 28       Cappadocia 182 

Agabus 174,  235       Caria 88 

Alexander,  the  procurator 174       Catiline 44 

Alexandria 24,  25,  28,  92,  222       Celcus 19 

Alford 34       Cenchreee 206 

Amphipolis 184       Census  in  Luke 118  ff. 

Ananias  of  Damascus 234       Cerinthian  Gnosticism 116, 158 

Ananias  of  Jerusalem 99,  234  (see  also  111) 




Cesnola 182 

China 96, 12O 

Chuza 65,  75 

Cicero 44,  217 

Cilicia 181, 182,  222 

Clauda 209 

Claudius 170, 174  ff. 

Claudius  Lysias 185,  201,  230,  235 

Clemen 7,  8, 11,  76 

Clement  of  Alexandria. .  .  14, 122  f.,  147 

"  Clementines" 21 

Cleophas 2O 

Codex  Bezae 21,  25,  26,  83. 158 

Colossians,  Epistle  to  the 38,  82 

Constantinople 56 

Corinth 27,  37,  81,  175  f.,  177,  184, 

194  f.,  226,  228 

I  Corinthians 82 

II  Corinthians 21,  82, 173 

Cornelius 84, 193,  221,  233,  235 

Credner 7 

Crescens 13,  29 

Crete 182,  210,  222 

Crispus 194 

Cuspius  Fadus 170 

Cyprus 25,  49,  182,  206 

Cyrene 25. 182 

Dalmatia 28 

Damaris 238 

Dante 238 

Darwin 154 

David 156 

Delphi 175  f. 

Demas 13,  18,  29,  83 

Demetrius 120, 188, 199.  235 

Demosthenes 51. 217 

Derbe 183 

De  Rossi 128 

De  Wette 6,  7 

Diana,  worship  of 120, 188, 199 

Dio  Cassius 217 

Dion  of  Prusa 90 

Dionysius 198 

Dioscorides.  .  .9,  24,  42,  96,  99,  100.  101 

Docetics 112 

Domitian 29, 34 

Dorcas 235 

Drusilla 235,  238 

Ebionitism 236  (see  also  111) 

Ebrard 34 

Ecclesiastes 49 

Eckert 167 

Egypt.  .  .70.  123, 124,  125,  126.  129,  182 

Einstein 115 

Elizabeth.  .  .58, 103, 104, 108, 109, 157, 


Elymas 100 

Emmaus 58 

Emperor  worship 188,  197  ff. 

Enoch,  Book  of 162  f. 

Epaphras 18,  83 

Ephesians,  Epistle  to  the 38,  82 

Ephesus  . .  .35,  37,  81,  98, 177.  184. 188, 
198  f.,  206 

Epicureans 188. 197,  229 

Erasistratus 92 

Erastus 83.  235 

Eudoxia 57 

Euthalius 22 

Eutychus 101, 135 

Ezekiel 163 

Ezra ,,,,,,,,,,.,.     50 

Fair  Havens 210,  213 

Famine  in  Judea 174  f. 

Farrar 34 

Felix. . .  177  f.,  181,  186,  196,  202  f.,  204, 
228,  235 

Festus  . .  .176ff.,  181,  186,  195,  203  f.. 
228,  230,  235 

Figgis 85 

Foster 143 

Gabriel ...  . .  104, 112, 117, 156  f. 

Gadera 139  f. 

Gaderene  demoniac 94, 139 

Gaius 83,  188,  199 

Galatia 13,  26,  27,  128,  182,  183,  228 

Galatians,  Epistle  to  the 82,  229 

Galen. .  .9,  10,  90,  92,  93,  95,  96,  97,  100, 
101,  131,  154 

Galilee 95, 140, 181,  200 

Galileo 115 

Gallia 28 

Gallio.  .  .  19,  20,  175  f.,  182,  194  f.,  202, 
232,  235 

Gamaliel 32,  170,  200,  232,  234 

Gardthausen 118 

Gerasa 139  f. 

GfSrer 167 

Gladstone 139, 155 

Gloag 34 

Gnostic  controversy 81 

God  the  Father. .  112, 114, 115, 117, 130, 
132  f.,  136,  137,  138  f.,  157  ff.,  196,  211 

Goethe 136 

Greece 66 

Greek  law 190  ff. 

Greek  manuscripts 160, 172 

Gregory  Nazianzen 29 

Grenfell 29, 142 

Hadrian f. 193 

Haeckel 240 

Harvey 92 

Hausrath 7 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the 24 

Hebrews,  Gospel  according  to ....     69 

Herod  Agrippa  I.  .32,   99,    174  f..    177, 

178,  181,  235 

Herod  Agrippa  II ...  178,  186,  200,  204, 
228,  230,  235 

Herod  Antipas 65,  75, 109, 181 

Herod  Archelaus 109,  124, 147,  181 

Herod  Philip 181 

Herod  the  Great 109, 121, 123. 124, 

126,  128,  181,  207 

Herodotus 18,  42,  86,  217  f.,  219 

Herophilus 92 

Hilgenfeld 7, 167 

Hippocrates 9,  10,  42,  91,  93,  96, 

97,  98,  101,  131,  154 

Hofmann 18 

Holtzmann 167 

Holy  Spirit,  the. .  .81,  85,  86,  104,  111, 

112,  113,  115,  134,  144,  156  f.,   158, 

164  f. 

Horace 5 

Hume .    136 

Huxley 136, 139,  140,  240 

Hyslop 136 

Iconium 183, 193 

India 120 

Inscriptions 17,  128, 157.  168,  175  f. 

182, 187,  188,  193,  199 
Irenseus 14,  29, 50 




Italy 28,175 

Iturea 181 

Jacob 187 

Jairus's  daughter 94 

James,  son  of  Zebedee. .  .26  ff.,  35,  82, 
172,  174,  181,  200,  220,  224,  234 

James,  the  Epistle  of 225 

James,  the  Lord's  brother 49,  75  f., 

84,  234 

Jason 196 

Jerusalem 25,  28,  34,  35,  37,  49,  53, 

57,  74,  76,  78,  80  ff.,  86,  98,  141,  149, 
162,  171  ff.,  176  f.,  200  f.,  228 
Jerusalem  conference. . .  .81,  82,  172  f., 
176,  221,  224  f. 

Jesus  Christ:  Virgin  Birth,  103  ff.; 
place  of  birth,  120,  125;  date  of 
birth,  124;  loneliness,  60;  sin- 
lessness,  117;  transfiguration, 
149, 160;  stay  in  the  tomb,  168  f. ; 
resurrection,  36,  85,  86,  113,  134, 
140,  149,  153;  ascension,  136, 
149;  as  seen  and  loved  by  Luke, 
29,  38,  54,  57,  59,  92,  93,  95  ff., 
110,  133,  137  f.,  141.  155  ff.,  241; 
as  pictured  by  Logia,  Mark, 
Matthew,  Luke,  Paul,  and  John 
the  same,  72,  155;  as  seen  by 
Paul,  81,  85;  as  seen  by  Stephen, 
233;  the  Jesus  or  Christ  contro 
versy,  153  ff . ;  Son  of  God,  155  ff . ; 
Son  of  Man,  161  ff.;  Saviour  of 

Keil 34 

Keim 167 

Khersa 139 

Kingdom  of  God. .  .81,  95, 144,  146,  149 

Knopf 7 

Koetsweld 149 

Koin6 .  .5,  17, 18,  36,  42,  58,  61,  144,  183 

Lange 34 

Livy 217 

Loeb 115 

Logia  (Q) .  .39.  44,  45,  46,  58,  69  ff.,  77, 
110,  116,  118,  135  f.,  153,  155 

Lucan 19 

Lucanus 20 

Lucian 11,  90,  91,  207 

Luke:  His  name,  16  ff.;  a  Gentile, 
probably  a  Greek,  18  f.,  180  f.;  a 
possible  freedman,  19  f . ;  possibly 
a  brother  of  Titus,  20  f . ;  birth 
place,  21  ff.;  education,  23  ff.; 
conversion,  25  ff. :  medical  mis 
sionary,  27  ff . ;  Paul's  companion, 
friend,  and  admirer,  1, 6ff.,  29, 39, 
46,  78 ff.,  83,  209 ff.,  235;  physi 
cian,  9ff.,  13,  24,  27  ff.,  65  f.,  85, 
90  ff..  102,  104,  106.  109.  131  ff.. 
231,  236,  241:  traditions  as  to 
death,  29;  personality,  56  ff.;  in 
terest  in  the  supernatural,  52,  85, 
103  ff.,  130  ff.,  240:  interest  in 
eschatology,  149;  cosmopolitan, 
46, 155,  232  ff. ;  friend  of  women, 

65  f.,  75,  108,  111,  237  f.;  interest 

sinners,    163f.;    great    humani-  in    children,    238  f.:    sympathy 

tarian,  163 ;  Captain  of  our  sal-  with  sinners,   235  f . ;   sympathy 

vation,  164  f.:  Lord  of  all,  137,  with  poor,   236  f.;  spiritual  in- 

138  f.,  140  f.;  most  tremendous  sight,  239  ff.;  understanding  of 

fact  in   history,    116,    133;   his  and  consecration  to  Jesus  Christ, 

miracles,  96,  130  ff.,  135  ff.;  the  60,  92,  241;  faces  the  Jesus  or 

Great  Physician, 28, 92, 93, 95  ff.,  Christ  controversy,   153  ff.;  his 

133,  137  f.,  141;  his  parables —  picture  of  Christ  not  theological 

their  beauty,  142  f.,  reason  for  but  historic,  155;  his  conception 

using,  143  f.,  meaning  of,  145  ff.,  of  Jesus  as — Son  of  God,  155  ff.. 

interpretation  of,    148;   his  lit-  Son  of  Man,  161  ff..  Saviour  of 

erary  style,  60  sinners,   163  f.,   Captain  of  our 

Jesus  Justus 18  salvation,  164  f. ;  interest  in  Jesus 

Jewish  law 49, 190  ff.,  200  f.  the  Physician,  92,  93,  95  ff.,  133, 

Jews 49,  111,  121, 124, 127, 158, 175  137  f.,  141;  knowledge  of  first- 
Joanna  65,  75, 109  century  details,  31 ;  contempo- 

John,  Gospel  of 74,  90, 105,  112,  rary   of  events,   46  ff.;   literary 

115,  134,  155  f.,  158,  160  man,  18,  23  ff.,  42{ff.,  58,  142  f., 

John,  the  Apostle 82,  105,  134,  172,  150 f.,   211  ff.;  man  of  science, 

232,  234  130  ff . :  appreciation  of  music  and 

John  the  Baptist.  .51, 66. 103, 107, 112,  poetry,  58.  240:  understanding  of 

135  f.,  158,  166  ff.,  239  Roman  law,  190  ff.,  of  nautical 

Jonah 211  matters,    206  ff. ;    reveals    own 

Joppa 83  personality,  56  ff.,  62;  portrait- 
Joseph,  husband  of  Mary. .  .30,  31,  32,  painter,  56  ff,.  234  f.;  master  of 
65, 103, 108, 109, 110  f.,  112,  120,  125,  style,   57  ff.,   68;   Hebraisms   in 
126  f.,  158,  162  writings,  64;  at  work  as  a  his- 

Joseph,  son  of  Jacob 187  torian,   50  ff. :   versatility,   57  f., 

Judaism..  25,  26,  104,  182,  194  f.,  205,  231  f.;    author    of    Gospel    and 

224  Acts,  4  ff . ;  date  of  writing  Acts. 

Judaizing  controversy 81,  140,  171,  31  ff.;  use  of  oral  and  written 

224  f.  sources,  76  ff . ;  consultations  with 

Judas  Barsabbas 234  Paul,  80  ff. ;  use  of  Paul's  Epis- 

Judas  Iscariot 69,220  ties,   82  f.;  other  first-hand  re- 
Judas  Maccabeus 61  porters,  83  ff. ;  use  of  Josephus, 

Judas  of  Damascus 234  31  ff.;   date  of  writing   Gospel, 

Judas  the  Galilean 32,127,169  37  ff.;    stimulated    by    work    of 

Judea,  39, 47,  55,{95, 124, 174  f..  181. 182  others,  44  ff . ;  interest  in  full  life 

Julia  Augusta 168  of  Jesus,  45,  47  f.;  method  and 

Julius,  the  centurion 210, 233,  235  object,  42  ff.,  50  ff.,  63,  66;  order- 

Jtingst 29, 76  liness,  53  f.;  use  of  early  docu- 



Luke — Continued 

ments  for  Gospel,  44  f.,  49  f., 
63  fl.,  66  ff.,  60  flf.,  72  ft.',  use 
of  oral  testimony  for  Gospel, 
48  flf.,  74;  assimilation  of  sources, 
61  flf.;  account  of  the  Virgin 
Birth — vital  to  his  history, 
103  flf.,  believed  by  himself, 
106  flf.,  based  on  reliable  evi 
dence,  108  flf.,  why  given,  110  flf.; 
account  of  the  miracles  of  Jesus, 
130  flf.,  135;  eyewitness  of  the 
miracles  of  Paul,  133  flf.;  his  ac 
curacy — in  general,  46  flf.,  50  fl., 
55  f.,  64,  concerning  the  cen 
sus  of  Luke  2 : 1  ff.,  120  ff.,  in 
chronology,  166  ff.,  in  archae 
ological  and  geographical  details, 
179  ff.,  in  the  narrative  of  Acts 
27,  208  f . ;  historical  worth  of 
Lukan  writings,  39  ff.,  46;  their 
importance,  1  ff. 

Luke,  Gospel  of:  Importance  of. 
Iff.;  identity  of  author,  4ff.. 
6  ff.,  9  ff.,  12  ff.,  30,  31,  52;  cul> 
ture  of  author,  18  ff.,  23  ff., 
42  ff.,  21  Iff.;  Pauline  influence 
in,  29,  74,  81 ;  date  of,  30  f.,  33  f., 
37  ff. ;  climax  of,  36;  prologue,  38, 
42  ff.;  historical  worth,  39  ff.; 
author's  method  and  object, 
42  ff.,  44  f.,  50  ff.,  63,  66;  literary 
beauty,  43,  62;  orderly  arrange 
ment  of  material,  53  f . ;  com 
pleteness  and  charm,  43,  54; 
bears  stamp  of  author's  person 
ality,  56  f.,  62;  pen  portraits, 
67  ff.,  234  f.;  poetry  in,  58,  240; 
sources — written  documents,  in 
general,  44  ff.,  49  ff.,  61  ff., 
72  ff.;  oral  testimony,  48  f.,  50, 
61,  72  ff.;  sources  assimilated, 
61  ff . ;  Semitic  sources,  63  ff . ; 
Mark  as  a  source,  38  f.,  66  ff.; 
Matthew  as  a  source,  70;  Logia 
as  a  source,  69  ff.;  Great  In 
terpolation,  68,  73;  one  author, 
78;  medical  terms  used,  90  ff.; 
changes  from  Mark's  account, 
92  ff . ;  items  of  medical  interest 
peculiar  to  Luke,  95  ff . ;  account 
of  birth  of  Jesus — vital  to  Luke's 
history,  103  ff.,  author's  belief  in 
it,  106  ff.,  based  on  reliable  evi 
dence,  108  ff.,  why  told,  110  ff.. 
credible  to-day,  113ff.,  most 
satisfactory  explanation  of 
Christ,  116  f.;  account  of  census 
— crucial,  118f.,  two  Bethle- 
hems,  120,  "the  whole  world," 
120;  the  account  trustworthy — 
as  to  date,  121  ff.,  as  to  enrol 
ment  by  households,  124  ff.,  as 
to  Quirinius,  127  ff. ;  account  of 
miracles — miracles  in  Q  and 
Mark,  135  ff.,  in  Luke  alone, 

137  f.;    miracles    over    nature, 

138  ff. ;    account    of   parables — 
their  beauty,  142  f.,  why  Christ 
used  them,  142  ff.,  their  mean 
ing,  145  ff.,  their  interpretation, 
148  f.,  Luke's  special  contribu 
tion,  149  ff. ;  picture  of  Jesus — as 
Son  of  God,    155  ff.,  as  Son  of 
Man,  161  ff.,  as  Saviour  of  sin 

ners,  163  f.,  as  Captain  of  our 
salvation,  164  f.,  as  the  Great 
Physician.  93,  95  ff.,  137  f.; 
nearest  approach  to  a  biography, 
54;  chronology  in  the  matter  of 
— beginning  of  John's  ministry, 
166  ff.,  length  of  Christ's  stay  in 
the  tomb,  168  f.,  Theudas, 
169  ff. ;  gospel  of  human  sym 
pathy,  233  f.,  235  ff.;  gospel  of 
sacrifice,  57,  236;  gospel  of  joy 
and  praise,  165,  240;  emphasis 
on  prayer,  239  f. 

Lumby 34 

Lycaonia 183 

Lycia 182 

Lycius  of  Gyrene 83 

Lydda 83 

Lydia 238 

Lysanias 32, 166,  167, 168 

Lysias 217 

Lystra 100,    183,    184,   187,    193  f., 

228,  229 

I  Maccabees 61 

II  Maccabees 222 

Macedonia. .  .27,  28,  111,  177,  182,  184, 

188,  206 

Maclaren 56 

Maecenas 5 

Malalas 121 

Malchus 94,  96,  97,  131 

Malta.  .9,  10,  18,  27,  101,  187,  209,  211 

Manaen 75,  83,  220 

Marcion 26,  30,  64 

Mark,  Gospel  of.  .3,  10,  12.  33,  38  f.. 

45  f.,  53,  66  ff.,  70  ff.,  72,  73,  74,  75. 

77,  87,  90,   112.   116,   118.J120,  134, 

136,  150,  153,  175 

Mark,  John 13,  18,  26,  29,  49.  83  f., 

106,  220,  234 

Martha 59, 238 

Mary  Magdalene 236 

Mary,  mother  of  Jesus.  .49,  57  ff.,  64  ff., 

103  ff.,  116  f.,  120,  125  ff.,  151,  156  ff., 

161  f.,  238 

Mary,  mother  of  Mark 49,  238 

Mary,  of  Bethany 59,  236,  238 

Matthew 105,  135 

Matthew,  Gospel  of.  .33,  39,  45,  53,  62. 

65,  66  ff.,  69  ff.,  90,  105  f.,  108,  110  ff., 

115f.,  120,  150,  155 

Meyer 104 

Miletus 226,  228 

Mill 240 

Mithraism 194 

Mnason 49,  83 

Mommsen 118, 128 

Muratorian  Canon 14,  25 

Mythology 114, 187 

Nathan 156 

Nazareth 95, 109,  120.  125 

Neapolis 206 

Nero 29.204 

New  Testament.  .49,  51,  56,  58,  77,  86, 
96,  97,  99, 100, 101, 105, 115,  147,  190 

Newton 115 

Nicolas 22 

Nicolaus  of  Damascus 121 

Nicoll 142 

Old  Testament,  34,  62/69,  114, 143, 156 

Onesiphorus 29 

Oosterzee 34, 233 



Origen 12, 21, 147 

Osier 92 

Overbeck 7,  8 

Ovid 187 

Palestine.  .26,  47,  54,  77,  107,  108,  121, 
122,  124,  126,  174,  181,  187,  202  ff. 

Pamphylia 182 

Papias 53,  69,  75 

Papyri.  .5,  17,  43,  50,  69,  88,  122, 123  f., 
129, 157,  158, 188 

Parthia 120 

Paul:  Luke's  subject  and  hero,  1, 
29,  46,  209  ff.,  235;  world  of,  2; 
possible  schoolmate  of  The- 
ophilus,  5;  and  the  author  of 
Acts,  6ff.,  9ff.,  12  ff.,  27  ff., 
78  ff.;  freeborn,  20;  at  Antioch 
in  Syria,  2;  meeting  Luke,  23, 
27;  at  Tarsus,  24  f.;  agent  in 
Luke's  conversion,  25 ff.;  pris 
oner  and  martyr,  29,  35  f.,  39; 
conversion,  100;  and  contribu 
tion  for  the  poor,  174  f. ;  knowl 
edge  of  the  life  of  Christ,  74,  85, 
112f.;  Luke's  informant,  80  ff., 
84;  on  Malta,  101  f.;  miracles 
of,  101  f.,  133  ff.;  at  Corinth, 
175  f.,  194  f. ;  his  Roman  citizen 
ship,  185  f.,  201;  on  side  of  law 
and  order,  191;  at  Antioch  in 
Pisidia,  192  f.;  at  Philippi,  191; 
at  Lystra,  193  f . ;  at  Thessa- 
lonica,  195  ff.;  at  Athens,  197  f.; 
at  Ephesus,  198  f . ;  and  Jewish 
law,  200  f. ;  and  Jewish  mob, 
200  f . ;  before  Roman  officials  in 
Palestine,  202  ff . ;  a  sea  traveller, 
206  ff . ;  his  personality  dominant 
in  Acts  27,  209  ff . ;  and  Stephen, 
223  f.;  his  speeches,  48,  225  ff. 
(see  also  30,  32,  38,  47,  49,  73, 
74,  76,  81,  98,  101,  120,  140,  165) 
Paul,  Epistles  of.  .  1,  3,  8,  12,  16,  18,  29, 
30  f.,  38,  76,  77,  82,  134,  176,  219,  221, 
226  f. 

Pella 37 

Pentecost.  .84,  85,  86,  134, 149, 164,  220 

Pergamos 92 

Perfcles 217 

" Period oi  of  Barnabas" 207 

Peter.  .1,  29,  30,  35,  39,  46,  48,  53,  76, 
84,  86,  97,  134,  140,  172,  174,  181, 
200,  220  ff.,  223  f.,  234  f. 

I  Peter 35,221 

II  Peter 221 

Pharisees,  the .  143  f.,  145, 146, 148, 159, 

200,  223,  233 

Philemon,  Epistle  to 38,  82,  204 

Philip,  the  disciple 21 

Philip,  the  evangelist.  .49,  75,  84,  86, 

220, 222, 234 

Philippi ..  19,  22,  23,  27,  78,  80,  178, 
183  f.,  186,  187  f.,  192,  206,  228 

Philistia 84 

Philo 36,  112,  147,  222 

Phoenicia 181, 182 

Phoenix 210,  213 

Phyrigia 183 

Pilate 75, 181, 195, 196,  202 

Pisidia 183 

Plato 58,  131 

Pliny...  77,205 

Plutarch 5,  30,  50,  57,  60,  135,  195 

Polybius 5,  42,  51,  217 

Pontus 182 

"Praefatio  Lucee" 22,  26,  28 

Priscilla 13, 17, 175,  235,  238 

Protevangelium  of  James 104 

Pseudo-Matthew 104 

Ptolemais 184 

Publius 10,  101,  102,  135,  187 

Puteoli 184 

Quirinius 118,  120,  123,  127  ff., 

166  f.,  169  f. 

Renan 4,  22 

Rendall 34 

Resch 34 

Roman  citizenship 185  f.,  201 

Roman  colonies 183  ff.,  192  ff. 

Roman  Empire.  .30,  76,  77  f.,  120,  121, 
122,  123,  165,  181,  183,  190  ff. 

Roman  law 190  ff. 

Roman  provinces 180  ff. 

Romans,  Epistle  to  the 82, 173 

Rome.  .19,  22,  25,  28,  29,  34,  35,  36,  37, 

38,  39,  67,  71,  78,  80,  81,  82,  84,  120, 

121,  123.  175,  184,  207,  228 

Sadducees 200,  223,  233 

Saint  Cyril 98 

Sallust 218,  219 

Samaria 84,  174, 181,  200 

Sanhedrin 160,  200  f.,  221 

Sapphira 221,  234,  238 

Savonarola 34 

Schaff 34 

Schiller 116 

Scholten 6 

Sea  of  Adria 213 

Sea  of  Galilee 140 

Secundus 188 

Selucia 206 

Seneca 19,  20,  25, 195 

Sentius  Saterninus 129 

Septuagint.  .32,  63,  64,  72,  88,  96,  100, 
157,  232 

Sergius  Paulus 182,  235 

Servilius 128 

Shechem 187 

Silas 13,  17,  19,  26,  27,  81,  83,  135, 

186,   196  f.,  221,  234 
Silvanus  (see  Silas) 

Simeon 58,  144,  157  f. 

Simon  Magus 234 

Sinaitic  Syriac Ill,  115, 126 

Socrates 197 

Sopater 83 

Sorof 76 

Sosipater 188 

Sosthenes 194  f. 

Spencer 240 

Spitta 7,76 

Stephen.  .  .29,  35,  187,  200,  222  ff.,  235 

Stoics 112,  188,  197  f.,  229 

Strabo 24,  25,  121,  179 

Strauss 167 

Syltems 121 

Synoptic  Gospels. .  .62  f.,  112, 144, 158, 


Syracuse 184 

Syria. . .  118,  122,  124,  128, 129,  181,  182 
Syrtis 213 

Tacitus 217  ff. 

Talmud 109, 143,  222 

Tarsus 18,  24  f.,  27,  184,  185 

Tertullus 190,  202,  230,  235 



"Testimonia" 62, 69 

Theodora  Lector 56 

Theophilus.  .4f.,  8,  12,  2O,  21.  24,  25, 


Theophylact 20 

I  Thessalonians 82,  176 

II  Thessalonians 82, 176 

Thessalonica.  .81,  120,  184,  188,  195  ff.. 

198, 228 

Theudas 32,  169  ff.,  178 

Tholuck 34 

Thomas,  Gospel  of 104 

Thucydides,  4,  18,  32,  39,  42,  217  f.,  227 

Tiberius 33,  123,  166  f. 

Tiele 18 

Timothy. .  .7, 13,  26,  27,  29,  81,  83,  194, 


I  Timothy 29 

Titus 12  f.,  20  f.,  22,  29,  81,  83,  171 

Titus,  Flavius  S.  V 33  f.,  167 

Titus  Justus 13 

Trachonitis 167, 181 

Trajan 77,  205 

Troas 13,  23,  78,  80,  184,  206 

Trophimus 13, 83, 200, 235 

Ttibingen  school 1, 40, 191 

Tychicus 83 

Tyndale 47 

Varus 129 

Vespasian 123 

Vibius  Maximus 125 

Virgil 63 

Vulgate 51 

Warfield .   134 

Wellhausen 63,  97 

Wells 163 

Wendt 7,  70 

Westcott 49 

Whitsitt 131 

Widow  of  Nain 96,  137  f.,  238 

Wieseler 34 

Wittichen 18 

Xenophon 80, 179,  217 

Zacchaeus 59 

Zacharias 58,  59,  64,  103  f. 

Zenos 190 


Abbott,  " The  Son  of  Man" 162 

Abbott-Smith,  "Manual  Lexicon 
of  the  Greek  N.  T." 43 

"^Egyptische  Urkunden  aus  den 
Koeniglichen  Museen  zu  Ber 
lin,"  43  (see  Index  of  Scripture 
and  Papyri) 

Alexander,  "Leading  Ideas  of  the 
Gospels" 240 

Allen,  "Oxford  Studies  in  the  Sy 
noptic  Problem  " 64, 71 

Angus,  "Int.  St.  B.  Encycl." 
("  Roman  Empire") 205 

Aristotle,  "Rhetoric,"  99  (see  also 
92,  131) 

Arnold,  "Literature  and  Dogma"    105 

Bacon,  "American  Journal  of  The 
ology,"  89  (see  also  219) 

Ball,  "  God  and  Our  Soldiers  " 115 

,  "St.  Paul  and  the  Roman 

Law"  (1901) 191 

Balmer,  "Die  Romfahrt  des  Apo- 

stels  Paulus"  (1905) 208 

Barrett,  "  On  the  Threshold  of  the 

Unseen" 116 

Bartlet,  "Apostolic  Age" 36, 172 

— — ,  "Oxford  Studies  in  the  Sy 
noptic  Problem"  ...  .64,  71,  72 

,  "  Standard  Bible  Dictionary" 

("Acts") 36 

Baur,  "Paul,"  1  (see  also 2,  7,  227) 
Bebb,  Hastings'®  "D.  B."  ("Luke 

the  Evangelist") 25,  67 

Belser,      "Theol.      Quartalschrift, 

Ttibingen  "  (1895-1896) 32 

Bethge,  "  Die  paulinischen  Reden" 

225,  226 

"Biblical  Review" 42, 118 

Bigg,  "Commentary" 221 

Biggs,  "  St.  Peter  and  Jude" 200 

Birt,     "Die    Burchrolle    in    der 

Kunst" 63 

Blass,  "  Acta  Apostolorum"  21,  79,  220 

,  "Die   Rhythmen    der    asia- 

nischen     und     rOmischen 

Kunstprosa" 58 

,  "  Philosophy  of  the  Gospels  " . .  21, 

30,  34,  35,  42  f.,  44,  47,  49,  50, 
51,  53,  55.  87 

Boeckh,  "Corp.  Inscr.  Gr." 168 

Box,  "  The  Virgin  Birth  of  Jesus  ". .   105 
Breusing,  "Die  Nautik  der  Alten" 

(1886) 208 

Broadus,  "Commentary  on  Mat 
thew" 148 

,  "Harmony  of  the  Gospels".  .74, 

149,  168 

Bruce,  "Apologetics" 117 

,  "Expositor's    Greek    Testa 
ment"  .  .  .44,  45,  47,  51,  52, 103 

,  "Parabolic      Teaching      of 

Christ" 149 

Burkitt,  "Gospel  History  and  Its 

Transmission" 14, 32, 62  f. 

,  "Journal      of      Theological 

Studies" 88,  89 

Burton,     "American    Journal    of 

Theology" 188 

,  "  Some  Principles  of  Literary 

Criticism  and  Their  Ap 
plication  to  the  Synoptic 

Problem" 73 

Buss,  "Roman  Law  and  History 
in  the  N.  T."  (1901) 191 

Cadbury,  "The  Style  and  Literary 
Method  of  Luke r'  (1919).  . .  .6,  11,91 

,  "The  Treatment  of  Sources 

in  the  Gospels" 68 

Carpenter,   "Christianity  Accord 
ing  to  S.  Luke". .  .4,  13,  23,  58  f.,  60, 
68,  69,  70,  74,  75,  79,  81,  84,  85,  105, 
114,  115  f.,  126,  132,  133,  140,  149, 
150  f.,  167  f.,  233  f.,  236,  237,  238 
Chase,    "The    Credibility    of   the 
Book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apos 
tles"  .  .4,  10,  11,  38,  39,  54,  76,  80,  227 
Chesterton,  "Hibbert  Journal". . .   233 

,  " Orthodoxy" 60 

"Christian  Worker's  Magazine". .   130 
Chrysostom,     "Horn,     on    Matt. 

64:3,"  148  (see  also  21,  180) 
Clemen,     "Die    Chronologic    der 
paulin.  Briefe"   (1893),  32  (see 
also  7,  8,  76) 

,  " Hibbert  Journal" 11 

Cobern,  "New  Archaeological  Dis 
coveries  and  Their  Bearing  on 
theN.  T." 43 

Dalman,  "The  Words  of  Jesua"  64,  65 
Davidson,    "Introduction    to   the 

New   Testament,"   8    (see   also 


Deissmann,  "Bible  Studies" 43, 88, 157 
,  "Light    from    the    Ancient 

East" 43,  125  f.,  237 

,  "St.  Paul" 175 

Didon,  "Jesus  Christ" 157 

Edmundson,     "The     Church     in 

Rome  During  the  First  Century ' '  39 
Emmet,  "Commentary  on  Gala- 

tians" 172 

"Encycl.  Biblica" 30, 120, 140 

Epiphanius,  "  Ag.  Her." 51 

Erbes,  Gebhardt  and  Harnack's 

"  Texte  und  Untersuch" 177 

Eusebius,  "Hist.  Eccl.".  .51,  53,  69  (see 

also  3,  21,  22,  23,  47,  177) 


250          INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  AND  BOOKS 

Everitt,    "St.   Paul's  Journey   to 
Rome"  (1904)  ............  '       .   208 

"Expositor"  (1920)  .............    153 

Ferguson,  "Historical  and  Lin 
guistic  Studies  of  University  of 
Chicago"  ....................  201 

Foakes-  Jackson,  "Harvard  The 
ological  Review  "  .............  88 

Friedrich,  "  Das  Lukas-Evangelium 
und  die  Apostelgeschichte  Werke 
desselben  Verfasser"  (1890).  .  .  6 

Furneaux,  "  Commentary  on  Acts  " 

26,  27,  34,  43,  170 

Gardner,    "Cambridge   Bible   Es 

says"..  132,    134,    189,    217ff.f    225 

226,  227,  231,  232 
Garvie,     Hastings's     "One     Vol 

D.  B."  ....................    .'   130 

Gilbert,  "Jesus"  ............  ',',',[   138 

Glover,  "Nature  and  Purpose  of  a 

Christian  Society  "  ____    .......   236 

-  ,  "The  Jesus  of  History"   151,  154 

-  ,   'The  Meaning  and  Purpose 

of  a  Christian  Society".     . 
"  " 



Goodspeed,  "The  Expositor.  . 
"Greek  Papyri  in  the  British  Mu 

seum,"  43  (see  Index  of  Scripture 

and  Papyri) 
Grenfell     and     Hunt,     "Amherst 

Papyri"  ............. 

-  ,  "  Hibeh  Papyri  ".....'.'! 

-  ,  "Oxyrhynchus  Papyri,"  43, 

44  (see  also  Index  of  Scrip 
ture  and  Papyri) 

Grenfell  and  Hunt  and  Hogarth, 
"Fayum     Towns     and     Their 
Papyri,"  43   (see  also  Index  of 
Scripture  and  Papyri) 
Grierson,    Hastings's    "One    Vol 
D-B."  .....................  /  107 

Harnack  ,    "  Chronologie   der   alt- 
christl.  Litt."  ............  34 

-  ,  "  Luke  the  Physician  "  ."."3,  '  5.    7 

8,  10,  13,  14,  17,  18,  23.  24.  26, 
33,  49,  52,  55.  68,  75,  86,  90  f. 
92,  98,  101,  131  f.,  138,  189 

-  ,     Sayings  of  Jesus"  .......  70,  71 

-  ,     The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  "  8.  10 

14  34,  40,  81,  82,  83,  85,  178 
180,  205,  234,  235 

-  ,  "The  Date  of  the  Acts  and 

the  Synoptic  Gospels  "..8,  12 
14,  35,  37  f.,  39,  40,  65  f.,  70  f. 
79,  104  f.,  106,  107,114 
Hams,  "  The  Expositor  "  ......         62 

Hase,  "  Geschichte  Jesu"  .  .  16O 

Hasluck,     "Journal     of    Hellenic 
Studies"  (1912)  .........  17 

Hastings      "Dictionary     of     the 
Apostolic  Church".  .14,   18,   31    32 
33,  34,  35,  36,  37,  72,  76,  80  f.    82 

207f"214  87>  178'  183>  18*'  190'  200,' 

-  ."Dictionary  of  the  Bible  "..25, 

30  36  f.,  67,  76,  124,  142,  147 
150,  174.  175,  180,  188,222 

-  ,     Dictionary  of  Christ  and 

the  Gospels  "  .........  146  147 

-  ,  "One  Volume  Dictionary  of' 

.    the  Bible  "....35,  107,  130,  185 
Hawkins,  "  The  Expositor  "  ......     74 

,  "Horae  Synopticae"  (1911)     3   7 
,  "Oxford 


and  ' 
of  Acts  "..  5,  20   21    24 

'       >       ' 

Headlam,     Hastings's     "D      B" 
("Acts")  ......  30,  36  f.,  76,  180  222 

^SSST*  Journal  Supplement  for 

1909      .........  1  |  A    i  cr: 

Hicks,  "Traces  of  Gre^k"  Philos 
ophy  and  Roman  Law  in  the 
-N.  T.  (1896)  .......  191 

Hobart,  '  '  The  Medical  Language  of     ' 


(see  also  167) 
Homan,   "Luke  the   Greek    Phy 

sician"  ......  01   f      -lot 

"  Homiletic  Review  "'.  '.  '.  '.  '.  '.  '.  '.  .  .    .'  217 
"Int.  St.  Bible  Encycl.".  .in,  131,205 

Jerome,  "Commentary  on  Isaiah"     91 

-  ,  "De  Viris  Illustribus,"   22    (see 

Jones.  "St.  Paul  £?&£•?:  £? 
225,  226,  227  f.,  229,  230 

-  ,  "The  Expositor".  .173,  176,  178, 


-  ,  "  The  N.  T  in  the  Twentieth 

Josephus,  "Antiquities  "..32,   61,   121 
124,  127,  167,  169  flf' 

-  ,     Jewish  War"  .....  '.  .  .32,  174  f. 

-  ,     Vita    ........  206 

Julicher,  "  Die  Gleichnisreden  Jesu  "  147 

-  .  "Einleitung"  .........  39 

-  ,  "Introduction   to   the  New 

Testament  "  ............       2 

Kenyon,  "  Classical  Review  ".  123 
Klostermann,  "Handbuch  zum 

-N.  T  .................  gg 

—  —  ,  "  Vindicae  Lucanae  "  (1866)  .'  .'  7 
Knowlmg   "  Acts"  ........  99,  187,  210 

Krenkel.  Josephus  und  Lukas" 

(1894)  .......................  32 

Lake,    "Earlier    Epistles    of    St 
Paul    .  ...  170  IQC 

-  ,  "  The  Expositor  "  !  .'  *  {27 

-  ,  Hastings's  "  Dict.of  the  Aposl 

tolic   Church"    ("Acts  of 
the  Apostles").  .14,  31,  32,  34, 
35  f..  37,  76,  80  f.,  82,  83  f.,  86. 
87.  171 

-  ,  Hastings's  "  Dict.of  the  Apos- 

'     " 

Lightfoot,  "Biblical  Essays"       12  177 

-  ,  "Commentary      on      Gala-' 

tians"  ..................   172 

-  ,     C9mmentary     on     Philip- 

pians"  20 


,     Essays     on     Supernatural 



.Smith's     "D.     B.""("Tne 
Acts")  ................       31 



Lock  and  Sanday,  "Two  Lectures 
on  the  Oxyrhynchus  Sayings  of 

Jesus"  (1889) 69 

Lodge,  "  Life  and  Matter    105 

Loisy,  " Hibbert  Journal" 85 

,  "  Les  Evangiles  Synoptiques 

59, 125 

Loofs,  "What  Is  the  Truth  about 
Jesus  Christ? " ;  •  •  6 

Luckock,  "The  Special  Character- 
istics  of  the  Four  Gospels  26,  57 

Lummis,  "  How  Luke  Was  Written     75 

Machen,  "Princeton  Review  '. . . . 
Mackinlay,     "A     Difficulty     Re 
moved"  (1919) 168 

.  "The  Literary  Marvels  of  St. 

Luke"  (1919) 54 

Maclean,  Hastings's  "Diet,  of  the 
Apostolic    Church"     ("Roman 

Law  in  N  T/') 190.200 

,  Hastings's  "One  Vol  D    B." 

("Acts") 35 

,  Hastings's  "One  Vol.  D.  B." 

("Paul") 185 

Madden.  "  Coins  of  the  Jews  " . .       174 
Mayor   "  Commentary  on  James "  225 
McGiffert,    "History    of    Christi 
anity  in  the  Apostolic  Age" ....   8.  9 
McKenna.  "Adventure  of  Life". .   154 

."Ad  venture  of  Death" 241 

McLachlan,  "St.  Luke:    the  Man 
and  His  Work". .  .74,  86.  89, 142, 151 

"  Methodist  Review  " 166 

Migne.  "Patrologia  Graeca" 22 

Milligan,  "  Greek  Papyri " 43 

,  "New      Testament      Docu 
ments" 43,  57  f. 

Moffatt,  "The  Expositor" 168 

,  "Introduction  to  the  Litera 
ture  of  the  N.  T."  ..1,4.  5,  12, 
14,  30  f.,  38,  42,  46,  57,  64,  65, 
76,  80,  83,  87,   180,   187,  219, 
220,  221 
Mommsen,  "The  Provinces  of  the 

Roman  Empire" 182 

Moulton,  J.  H.,  "  The  Expositor". .     70 

.  "  Grammar  of  N.  T.  Greek"..     17 

Moulton.  W.  J.,  Hastings's  "Diet. 

of  Christ  and  the  Gospels" . .  146,  147 
Moulton   and   Milligan,    "Vocab 
ulary  of  the  N.  T/' .  .43,  96,  97,  122, 
153,  188, 191 

Murray,   "Four  Stages  of  Greek 
Religion" 237 

Nachmanson,"  Beitrage  zur  Kennt- 
nis    der    altgriechischen    Volks- 

sprache" 17 

Naylor,  "The  Expositor" 106 

,  " Hibbert  Journal" 91 

Nestle,  " The  Expositor" 87 

Nikitsky,  "  Epigraphical  Studies  at 

Delphi "  (1898) 175 

Nolloth,  "The  Rise  of  the  Chris 
tian  Religion" 39 

Norden,  "  Kunstprosa" 58 

Nosgen,  "  Apostelgeschichte  " 170 

Orosius,  "Adversus  Paganos  His- 

toriarum" 174, 175 

Orr,  "The  Virgin  Birth  of  Christ" 

109, 114, 117 

Paley,  "Horse  Paulinas" 

Peake,  "  Introduction  to  the  N.  T." 
Pfleiderer,  "Christian  Origins,".. 2 

also  7) 
Plooij,  "De  Chronologic  van  het 

leven  van  Paulus" 

,  "The  Expositor" 173, 

Plummer,  "Commentary  on  St. 
Luke"  .7,  16,  17,  20,  22,  24,  26 
32,  33,  34,  42,  44,  45,  46,  48,  49 
52,  53,  54,  55,  56,  57,  65,  67,  93 
125,  126,  127,  156,  157,  159,  160, 
167,  231,  239,  240 
-,  Hastings's  "  D.  B." . .  142,  147 

1 19       Plumptre,  "  Books  of  the  Bible ' ' . 



,  31, 

,  51, 




Rackham,  "  Commentary  on  Acts" 
20.  23,  24.  26,  27,  35,  36,  56,  59,  170, 
171,  193,  196,  198,  199,  206,  208,  210, 
211.  222,  223,  225,  234,  235 
Ramsay.  "The  Bearing  of  Recent 
Discovery  on  the   Trustworthi 
ness  of  the  N.  T." .  .2,  16,  17,  19,  20, 
40  f,   64,    79,   82,    83,    85,    103,    114, 
118  f.,  122,   123,   124,  127,   128,   129, 
168.  173,  179  f-.  182,  201,  204 

.  "The  Church  in  the  Roman 

Empire"  (1893). 2, 180,  184,  191 

,  "The  Cities  of  St.  Paul".  .2,  18, 

24  f..  180,  183,  185,  187 

.  "The  Expositor  •'..44,  71,85, 172 

.  "  Galatians  " 192,  193 

.Hastings's    "D.  B."    ("Asi- 

archs") 188 

,  "The  Historical  Geography 

of  Asia  Minor" 2,  179 

,  "Luke  the  Physician".  .2,  3,  10, 

22,  71.  98.  101,  111,  114 

"  Pauline  and  Other  Studies  " 

2,  3,  8,  77  f.,  177  f.,  232 

,  "St.  Paul  the  Traveller  and 

Roman  Citizen".  .2,  5,  12,  22, 
23,  27,  31,  33,  40,  41,  42,  44,  46, 
54,  81.  86,  166,  167,  174,  177, 
178.  183,  187.  192.  198.  203, 
204,  207.  208.  210,  212,  213, 
214,  216,  229 

,  "Was  Christ  Born  at  Beth 
lehem?  '..2.  53.  55  f..  64,  65. 
103  f.,  107,  108,  llOf.,  112,  119, 
121,    122,    123,    124,    125,    126, 
127,    128,    170,    171,    174,    175, 
180  f- 
"  Record  of  Christian  Work,  The  " .   206 

Renan,  "  Les  Evangiles  " 43 

Robertson,  "Bible  for  Home  and 

School" 69 

,  "Contemporary  Review"  72, 155 

,  "The  Divinity  of  Christ  in 

the  Gospel  of  John"  (1916)  155 

,  "A  Grammar  of  the  Greek 

N.  T.  in  the  Light  of  His 
torical  Research" 5, 13, 17, 

58, 159 

,  "The   Life   and   Letters   of 

John  A.  Broadus" 50 

,  "The  New  Citizenship" 186 

,  "Practical    and    Social    As 
pects  of  Christianity" 225 

,  "Studies  in  Mark's  Gospel" 

(1919). .  .  .38,  39,  67,  68,  70,  155 
Robinson,  Hastings's  "  Diet,  of  the 

Apostolic  Church"  ("Ship")  207,  214 
,  "Some  Thoughts  on  the  In 
carnation" 104 



Ropes,  "  Epistle  of  James" 225 

Rosser,  "Paul  the  Preacher" 229 

Round,  "The  Date  of  Galatians"  172 

Ruskin,  "Sesame  and  Lilies" 52 

Salmon, V  The  Human  Element  in 

the  Gospels" 44,  71 

Sanday,      "Bampton      Lectures" 

(1893) 170 

,  "Book  by  Book" 43 

.  "Expository  Times" 65 

,  "Oxford  Studies  in  the  Sy 
noptic   Problem"    (1911).. 38, 
62,  63,  67,  71,  73 

,  "Sacred   Sites   of  the   Gos 
pels" 120 

Schmiedel,  "Enc.  Biblica,"  30, 140,  219 

(see  also  7,  227) 
Schuerer,     "Zeitschrift     f.     Krit. 

Theol."  (1876),  170  (see  also  7) 
Schweitzer,  "Paul  and  His  Inter 
preters"  1 

Selwyn,  "St.  Luke  the  Prophet"  13, 17 

Smith,  "  Dictionary  of  the  Bible  ". .     31 

Smith,  E.,  "Homiletic  Review ".. 208, 


Smith,  J.,  "The  Voyage  and  Ship 
wreck  of  St.   Paul"    (1880)..  208  f., 

Soltau,  "The  Virgin  Birth" 106 

Souter,   "Pocket  Lexicon  of  the 

Greek  N.  T." 43 

Stalker,     "The     Beauty    of    the 

Bible,"  142  (see  also  58,  104) 
"  Standard  Bible  Dictionary,  The  "     36 
Stan  ton,  "The  Gospels  as  Histori 
cal  Documents" 32, 67, 72, 150 

Stawell,  " St.  Luke  and  Virgil" ...     19 

Stokes,  " Gifford  Lectures" 105 

Stouter,  Hastings's  "Diet,  of  the 
Apostolic  Church "  ("  Citizen 
ship") 185 

,  Hastings's  "  Diet  of  the  Apos 
tolic  Church  "  ("  Colony  " )  183 
Streeter,  "Oxford  Studies"..  .70,  71, 73 
Suetonius,  "  Lives  of  the  Caesars  " . .  167, 


" Sunday  School  Times" 103 

"Supernatural  Religion" 6, 16 

Sweet,   "Int.   St.    Bible  Encycl." 

("Mary") Ill 

Swete,  "The  Gospel  According  to 
St.  Mark" 67 

Tacitus,  "Annals,"  167  (see  also  175) 
Taylor,  "  The  Oxyrhynchus  Logia" 

(1899) 7.7.T.     69 

,  "The  Oxyrhynchus  Sayings 

of  Jesus"  (1905) 69 

Tertullian,   "Adv.   Marcion,"  26,   129 
(see  also  14) 

Torr,  "Ancient  Ships"  (1894) 208 

Torrey,  "American  Journal  of  The 
ology  "  89 

,  "The  Composition  and  Date 

of  Acts"  (1916).  .7,  9,  18,  34, 
37,  38,  87  f. 

,  "Studies  in  the  History  of 

Religions" 87 

Trench,  "Notes  on  the  Parables ". .    148 
Turner, Hastings' s"D.B."  ("Chro 
nology  of the  N.  T.") . . . 124, 174,  175 

Usener,  "Encycl.  Biblica" 120 

Vars,  "L'Art  nautique  dans  1'an- 
tiquitS  et  specialement  en  grfcc" 
(1887) 208 

Viereck,  "  Philologus" 123 

Vigoroux,  "Le  nouveau  Testa 
ment" iso 

Vogel,    "Zur    Characteristik    des 
Lukas  nach  Sprache  und  Stil,"  6  (see 
also  7) 

Von  Soden,  "History  of  Early 
Christian  Literature" 2 

,  "Introduction  to  the  N.  T."     80 

Wace,   "Int.   St.   Bible  Encycl." 

("  Miracles") 131, 134 

Wainel,  "  Die  Gleichnisse  Jesu  "...   147 
Weiss,   B.,   "Introduction  to  the 
Literature  of  the  N.  T.,"  70  (see  also 

Weiss,  J.,  "  Die  Schriften  des  N.  T. ; 
das  Lucas-Evangelium,"  6  (see  also  7) 

Weizsacker,  "  Apostolic  Age  " 2 

Wendling,  "Die  Entstehung  des 
Marcusevangeliums"  (1908).. . .  67 

,  "Urmarcus"  (1905) 67 

Whi taker,  " The  Expositor" 28 

Wilcken,  "Hermes,*  123  (see  118) 
Wilkinson,    "A   Johannine   Docu 
ment  in  the  First  Chapter  of  S. 

Luke's  Gospel " 66 

Williams,  N.  P.,  "Oxford  Studies"     67 
Wilson,  J.  N.,  "Harvard  Theologi 
cal  Review" 88.  89 

Wright,  "Gospel  According  to  St. 

Luke  in  Greek" 64  f. 

,  Hastings's  "Diet,  of  Christ 

and  the  Gospels" 73, 155  f. 

Zahn,  "Einleitung,"  9,  11  (see  also  7) 
Zenos,    Hastings's   "Diet,   of  the 
Apostolic  Church  "  ("  Dates  ") . .   178 



Chap.    1:16....  Ill, 


Chap.    3:1  94 
Chap.    4  :  10  145 
•  11     .    ...    144 

Chap.    l:65f  66 
:  68-79.  ...   240 
:  80  65 

:  18-20 

:  12  144 

Chap.    2  :  1-7 



•  23                  145 

118,  120,  124, 

:  19.  ...  108,  127 

•  24              .    145 

126,  127,  129, 

:  20-25.  .  .  . 


•  33  f  144 


Chap.    2:6  


•  35-41  .  .  .    140 

:  1-3 

Chap.    3:17  


:  45-8  :  26  .      67 


Chap.    7:6  



Chap.    5:2  94 
•  13                  139 

:  1  120 
:2-5  118 

Chap.    8:2  


•  15     94 


:  5-13  


:  26  10,  93 

122,  123,  127, 

:  14  f  


•  41  f  94 


:  23-27.... 


Chap.    6  :  39  f....  68,  140 
:  45-8:  26.     68 

:  3           124,  125 
:4-7  161 

Chap.    9:2  


:  46  239 

:4  126 

:  5  f  
:  25  
Chap.  10  :  8  


Chap.    8  :  29  158 
Chap.    9:7  160 
•  17  f                94 

:5  125 
:  7  236 
:8  236 

Chap.  11:4-6  
:  22  


Chap.  10  :  25  95 
•  34             .    169 

:  13  240 
:  14  240 

:  25-30  


Chap.  13  67 
13-14             .     33 

:  19  65 
:  20  240 

Chap.  12  :  10  


•  47                    94 

:21  65 

Chap.  13  149, 


•  62     .    ...    160 

:  23-38.  ...      66 

:  11  


Chap.  15:  15  196 
Chap.  16:  1  169 

:  24  236 
:26..  .33  157  f. 
:  29-32..    .   240 

:  34  



:  32  233 

:  36  
Chap.  16  :  16  


Chaps.  1-4  64 
Chaps.  1  and  2..  18,  57, 
64,  65,  86,  103, 

:  34  144 
:  39  120 

:  17  


107,  161,  219, 

:49  115,  158 



991    222 

:  51-18  :  14     68 

Chap.  17  :  5  


Chap.    1 

5    18,  21,  42, 

:51           65,109 
:52  65,  162 

Chap.  19  :  23  


57,    86,    103, 

Chap.    3:  1-3....  77,  166 

:  24  



:  If  33,  166 

Chap.  21  


:1..32,178,  181 

Chap.  22  
Chap.  24  


44,  47,  49  f., 
55,  72 

:  15  33 
:21f  159 

24:  15  



:21  239 

Chap.  25  
Chap.  26:  51  


48,  49,  55,  78 

153,  158,  159, 

:  63  


5   42,  44,  45, 




51  flf    56 

:23  166 



4                 4  55 

:  38  157 

Chap.  28:  1  


5-2:52.  57,  63 

Chap.    4:3-13  75 

9                    240 

:3  158  f. 


26  166 

:9  158  f. 

Chap.    1:4  



31-33  104 
32  f  156 

:  16-30..  75,  159 
:18  236 

•  26 


34  f.  104 

:  20  48 

•  30  f 



:21  159 

•  35 


103,  117,  156 

:22  159 

•  40 


42-45  240 

:23..90,  95,  145 

Chap.    2:3  


43  157 
46-55  240 

:  40  f.  96 
:41  33 




Luke—  Continued 




...  156 


19  :  11-27 


5:  1-11 

22.  .  .  . 

.  .  .  160 

147,  149, 


75,  96,  140          : 




•  12 

.  .93,97 

30.  .  .  . 

...  150 

:37..  . 


:  15  f.  .  . 

...   96 


.  .  .  148 

:  41-44..  . 


:  16  

...  239 




...  239 


20  :  9-19  


•  jg 

.  94,  100 



.  .  .  239 


21  :  5-36  


:  19.  ... 

...   68 

5-8.  .  . 

.  .  .  150 

:  8.  . 


.  .  .  159 



...  148 

:20  33  f. 

:  23  f  .  .  . 

...   66 



.  .  .  240 

•  21 


:  24.  ... 

...  159 


37  f.  .  . 

.  ..   58 

:  28  


:  25  f  .  .  . 

.  .  .  240 




:  29-33 

:  31  f.  .  . 

...  146 


150,  237 



:  34  

...  146 


.  .  .  150 



:  36-39. 

.  .  .  150 


...  164 

:  36  




...  159 



6-9.  .  . 

...  150 


22  :  14-24  :  10 


:  6  

.  ..   94 


.96,  137 

:  15-22.  .  . 


:  12.... 

...  239 

13.  .  .  . 

.  .  .  240 

:  19  flP  


:  17-19. 

...   96 



...   73 

:  19  f  


:  20  

...  236 


...  150 



:  21-49. 

...   75 


...  146 

:  32  


•  21 

.  .  .  236 


.74,  168 

:  35  


:  39.  ... 

...  146 


...   96 

:  39  


:  42.  ... 

...  146 



-18.  .. 

...   59 

:  40  




...  239 



...  149 

:  44.  .  . 


7  :  1-10.  . 

...  136 


1-6..  . 

96,  137 

:  50  


:  1-8.  .  . 

...   75 


..   58 

:  11-17. 




..   96 

94,  96,  97, 


.96,  130 



.  .  150 

:  66  


:  16.... 

.  .  .  240 



..  236 

:  67.  .  . 


.  .  .  135 



..  150 

:  69  


:  20-23. 

...  135 



.  .  .  237 

:  70  




22.  .  .  . 

...  236 


23  :  2  





...  146 

•  31 



236,  237 



...  146 

:  32-54.  .  .  . 


:  24.  ... 

...  146 



.  .  .  150 



:  36  f  .  .  . 

...   58 



...  150 

:  46  


:  37.  ... 

.  .  .  236 



.  .  .  150 

:  50  


:  40-43. 

...  150 



:  53  


...  236 


8,  149, 

150,  235 

:  54  



8  :  1-3.  .  . 

.  .  .  237 



148,  235 





...  236 



...  150 

24:  1  



...   75 





:  4-15.  . 

...  146 

146,  150 

:  10  


:  5-15.  . 

...  147 



.  .  .  186 

:  13  


:  9..  142 




148,  150 


:  10.  ... 

...  144 



148,  150 

33,  161, 


...  58 


:  38-43  .... 


•  18 

.  .  .  145 


148,  231 


:  22-25. 

...  140 



:  45  


:  27.  ... 

...   94 



...  148 

:  46-49.  .  .  . 


:  28.  ... 

...  159 



:46  33, 



...  139 


150,  237 

:  52  


:  35.  ... 

.94,  139 



.  150 

:  53  


.  .  .  139 

:  20.  187  f.,  236 


10,  92  f  . 


...   98 


:  55  

.  ..   94 


...  236 






...  95 




...  188 

:  14....  106, 


:  10-17. 

.  .  .  140 

7-10.  . 

...  150 

:  18  


'  14  f  .  .  . 

...   68 





:  18.. 


96,  97.  137 

:  34....  112, 


:  20-27. 

...  164 


.  74,  168 

:  49  





.  .  .  240 





158,  160 

20  f  .  .  . 

...  149 




:  22  

164,  169 



...  150 

4:  16  ff  


:  23  f  .  .  . 

...  146 


1-8.  .  . 

150,  239 




•  35 

...  160 



.  .  .  150 

:  17  


:  38  f  .  .  . 

...  94 



.  .  .  150 

:  18  115, 


:  38.  ... 

.  .  .  239 



.  .  .  240 

:  19  f  



.  .  .  164 



...  239 

:  19  


:  51-12 

59  73 


.95,  146 

:  24  




43.  ... 

...  240 






...  234 



2-10.  . 

.  .  .  236 

:  8  f  


10  :  9  

.  .  .  95 


...  236 

•  ij  f 


,  ..  95 



...  186 

:  19  




John—  Continued 

Chap.    5  :  15  100 

Chap.  13  :  4  182,  206 

Chap.    7  :  2  fl  168 

:  16  98 

:  5  48 

:2  14 

:  17  f  200 

:  8  182 

:41f  120 

:  18  200 

:11  100 

:  42  120 

:29-32....    221 

:  12  182 

Chap.    8:  19  115 

:  33-42  200 

:  13  182 

:48  117 

:  33  200 

:  14  183 

Chap.    9  :  6  f  134 


:  16-41  228 

Chap.  10  :  6  145 

32,  169,  171 

:  45  192 

:  25  115 


:  46  224 

Chap.  11:  17  f  168 
:  17  74 

122,  123,  126,  127 
Chaps.  6  and  7  84 

:50  192 
Chap.  14  :  3  193 

:  44  134 

Chap.    6:5  22,222 

:5  193 

Chap.  12:1  74,168 

:  9  222 

:6  183 

:  20  21 

:  11-14....   200 

:  8-18.  .  187,  193 

:  34  162 

Chap.    7:2-53  222 

:8  100 

Chap.  16  :  25  145 

:  16  187 

:11  183 

:  29  145 

:51  224 

:  12-17.  ...   228 

Chap.  18  :  10  94 

:53  222 

:  19  22,  193 

:31  200 

:56  222 

:  20  194 

Chap.  19  :  12  196 

:  58  20 

:21  22 

:  15  196 

:59  222 

:  23  23 

Chaps.  20  and  21  ...   134 
Chap.  20:  1  169 
:  30  f  156 

Chap.    8  84 
8:1           .84,222 
:  3  200 

:  26  22 
Chap.  15:81,82,172,173 
15  :  1-30  82 

:31  42 

:  5-40  87 

:2-29  171  f. 

Chap.  21  :  1-14  140 

:  7  85 

:  4  224 

:  6.  .  .           .134 

Chaps.  9-28  83 

:7-ll  221 

:  24  134 

Chap.    9  229 

:  13-21....    224 

9:  1-30....  81-84 

:  18  f  225 


:  1  f  200 

:  22  f  224 

Chaps  1-15 

:  18  94,100 

:  22  22 

18,  37,  77,  84,  86  flf. 

:  26-30  171 

:  23-29  224 

Chaps.  1-14  83 

:  31-13  :  13     84 

:  23  22 

Chaps.  1-12 

:33  100 

:  24  224 

76f.,84,  85,  87,  222 

:36  86 

:  25.  .  .         .   224 

Chaps.  1-5   57,  84,  85,  86 

Chap.  10  223 

:  30  22 

Chap.    1  85 

10  :  1  f  193 

:35  22 

1:1       1,4,5,31, 

:  10  100 

:41  182 

36,     37,     48, 

:  11  214 

Chaps.  16-28.  .  .  .37,  187 

164,  235 

:  28-29....   221 

Chap.  16  228 

:  3  99 

:  34-43  221 

16:6  182,  183 

:  4  99 

:  36-43.  ...      48 

:7  182 

:  11-15  :  35     89 

:47  221 

:  9-40  178 

:  14  84 

Chaps.  Hand  12...   174 

:  9  f  23 

:  15-22.  ...   220 

Chap.  11:4-17  221 

:  10-40  7 

•  19     .              86 

:  4  53 

:10..27,  75,  182 

:  64  240 

:5  100 

:11..  ..182,206 

Chap.    2  85 

:  19-27  22 

:  12  183 

2  :  1-13  86 

:  25  f  26 

:  13  27 

:  9           ...    182 

:  27-30 

:  17..27.135.199 

:  10  182 

81,  174,  175 

:18  135 

:  11  182 

:27  31 

:  19  192 

:  14-39  ....   220 

:28..  .25,26,83 

:  20  192 

:  22  134 

:  29  f  171  f. 

:  21-23 

:  28  240 

:  30  175 

185,  192 

:  47  240 

Chap.  12  :  1-23  175 

:  22  192 

Chaps.  3-5  85,87 
Chap.    3  :  7  f  99 

:  1  f  181 
:  2  174,  200 

:  26-34  135 
:35f  192 

•8f             .   240 

:  3  fl  181 

:37  186 

•  12-26       .    221 

:  12  49 

:  38  179 

:  12  .  .              85 

:13-17....   200 

Chaps.  17-19  81 

:  16  88 

:17  174 

Chap.  17  24 

Chaps.  4  and  5  236 
Chap.    4  :  1  f  200 

:  20-23 
174,  181 

17:4  195 
:  5  195 

:8-12...    .   221 

:  23  99 

:  6  195 

:19  221 

:  25-31....    181 

:7  196 

•  35         .          93 


:  9.  .  .          .196 

:  36    182 

171,  174,  175 

:  10  197 

:  38  f  93 

Chaps.  13-28  76,85 

:  11  2 

Chap.    5  :  3-4  221 
:5  99 

Chaps.  13  and  14  ...     81 
Chap.  13  174 

:  14.  ...  197,  206 
:18  197 

•  6                      99 

13:  1 

:  19  f  197 

•9     .           .221 

17,  18,  22,  75, 

:  22-31....   226 

-.10  99 


:28  157 



Chap.  17  :  32-34  197 

Chap.  24  :  1-9  202 
:  1  181,190 

Chap.  28  :  9  f.  10,  27,  135 
11..  .  .207,215 

:  34  188 

:2-28  230 

14.                228 

:63  120 
Chap.  18:  1  f..  .  .175,  176 

:3  5 
:  10-21.  ...   202 

16  177,  228 
17-28  228 

:  2  175 

:  14  194 

30-31  30 

:  6  224 

:  22  202 

:8  194 
:  12  fl  175 

:24f  203 
:26  203,228 


:  12  182 


Chap.    1  .  .                .  229 

:13  194 

176  f.,  181,203 

l:3f  113 

:  14  f  195 

Chap.  25  :  1-5  203 

:  14  19 

:  17  195 

:  9  203 

Chap.    2  229 

:  18  f.  225 

:  10-12  203 

Chap.    3  62 

:  18  206 

:  11  186 

Chap.    8  227 

:  21  f  206 

:12  186 

Chaps.  9-11  194,  223 

:22  22,  171 

:  13-27  204 

Chap.    9:  11  156 

:  23....  182,  183 
Chap.  19  :  2-16  81 

:  14-22.  ...   230 
:  19  60 

Chap.  13:  1..  .          .   191 
Chap.  14  :  5  47 

:10  182 

:  24-27  230 

Chap.  15  :  18  f.  .  .      .    134 

:  11  98 

:  27  186 

Chap.  16:7-21  18 

:21  78,  182 

Chap.  26  229 

:21  18 

:  24-27  199 

26  :  1-23  204 

:  26  f  199 
:26  182 

:  10  f  200 
:  10 


:27  120 

84,  200,  222 

Chap.    1  :  17.  .  .        .  226 

:  29  81 

:  24-32          204 

:  26-31....   237 

:31  198 

:  25  5 

Chap.    2:4  226 

:33  198 

:  32  186 

Chap.    9:1  134 

:  34  188 
:  35  198 

Chap.  27  58,206ff. 
27  :  1  210 

Chap.  11:23-25....      74 
Chap.  12  :  1-3  205 

:  37  199 

:  2..  .          12  81 

:  9  f  134 

:38  188,198 

:  3  210 

-.28-30....    134 

:  39  198 
Chap.  20:  1  199,206 

:4  212,214 
:  5  182 

Chap.  13  227 
Chap.  14  :  22  134 

:4  81 


Chap.  15  227 

:  5-28  :  31  .      78 

182,  212,  214 

15:8  134 

:5fl  178 

:  9  f.  210 

:5  27 

:9  210 


:  6-28  :  31  .        7 
:  6  206 
:  9-12.  .  101,  135 
:  13-20  :  14  206 

:10  215 
:11..    .210,214 
:12..    .210,213 
:13..    .210,213 

Chap.    2  :  17  fl.  .  .    .   144 
Chap.    5:21  117 
Chap.    8:9  163 

:  15,    ,       .  .   228 
:  18-35  226 
:  25  35 
Chap.  21  :  1-10             101 
:8»f  49 
:8  84 
:  15  180 
:  16  49 
:  27-23:  30   171 
:  17  f  228 

:  14  f.   213 
:14..    .209,213 
:  15-17....   213 
:  16  212,214 
:  17....  214,  215 
:20  211 
:  21-26....   211 
:21..,         .    182 

:23  28,224 
:  25  28 
Chap.  10  :  10  226 
Chap.  ll:24f  200 
:  25  206 
:  26  206 
Chap.  12  :  12  134 
:  18  13,21 

:  18.  .    49,  75  84 


:21  '55 

209,  213,  214 


:  25  225 
:  27-31....   200 

:28  209 
:  29  215 

Chap.    1  :  16  134 
:  18             171  f 

:  33-36  201 

:  30-32....   211 

Chap.    2  82 

:  38  201 
:  39-22  :  23  201 

:  30....  214,  215 
:32  215 

2:  1-10.82,  171  f. 
:  1                   171 

:  39  185 
Chap.  22  229 
22:  1-21  228 

:  33-36....   211 
:  37  207 
:38  215 

:3  21 
Chap.    3  156,194 
3:5  134 

:  2  69 


:  15  .    .  .        191 

:  4  f  200 

206,  212,  214,  215 

:  17  224 

:  4  200 


:  19.  .    .  .        222 

:  17  100 
:  24-29  201 

209,  213/214 

:4*  211 

:  23-25....    191 
•  28                 238 

:28  20,185 

Chap.  28  :  1-10  211 

Chap.    4  191 

:  30  201 
Chap.  23  :  1-10  201 

:2  18 

:4  is 

4:2  191 
:4...           .    113 

:  1  185 

:s  135 

:  13..  .13,23,27 

:  26-30  201 
:  27-30  230 

:6  9 

:7  187 

:  21-31....    191 
:  24  147 

:35  202 

:8  10,135 

Chap.    6:5  215 




Chap.    1:27 186 

Chap.    2:5-11 163 

:  20 82 

Chap.    3 227 

3:20 186 


Chap.    l:16f 137 

chap-  4;i8-f14::::  it 

:  10 

12,  39,  67,  81 
:  12-14....      18 

:  12 47 

:  14 


Chap.    2 :  3  f 196  f. 

Chap.    3:10.! '.'.'.'.'.  196 

Chap.    2:2  


..   191 



Chap.    1:5  
Chap.    3:4  
:  10-18.... 


Chap.    1:15-17.. 


Chap.    4:5  

..      47 


•  11 

14  16 

•  17.    .  .  . 


Chap.    2:12... 


*  21 




Chap.    4  :  16  



Chap.    3:13  

..    190 



Chap.    1:1  


V.  23  f  

..      18 

:  16  


24           12,  13, 
67,  74, 

16,  28, 



Chap.    3:5  


Chap.    4  :  15  
Chap.    6  :  19  
Chap.    7:25  


,  ..      96 

Chap.  18  


Chap.    9  :  16  f  .  .  .  . 

,  .  .    191 

18:  17  


Chap.  13:13  

.  ..   205 

Chap.  21:1  



Chap.    1 : 13 187 

Chap.  23  :  16 187 

Chap.  33  :  19 187 

Chap.  40:38 156 

Chap.  13  : 12 93 

Chap.    7:5-17 156 


Chap.  21:12 225 

Chap.  30:1 225 

Chap.  32 :  17 225 


2:7 158 

89 156 

90:1 157 



Chap.    2:20 50 


Chap.    7:14 105 

Chap.  40:  If 95 

Chap.  43  :  6 91 

Chap.  58:6 159 

Chap.  61 :  1  f 159 


Chap.  29:  1 225 

:25 225 

Chap.    4:20 157  f. 


Chap.  21 :  7 99 


Chap.    7  :  13  f 163 

:13 161 

Chap.    9:27 33 


Chap.    5:2 120 



Chap.    4 :  13  f 223 

Chap.    5:11 99 


Chap.    6:35 49 

Chap.  51 :  10 157 


Chap.    2:32 49 


Chap.    4:11 97 

Chap.  17:36...^...   157 

B.  U. 

No.    113,11 157 

1079,  24  f 202 

1179,20 196 

P.  FAT. 

No.      II,  9  f. 88 

P.  OXT. 

No.    119,10 196 

254 122 


No.    256 122 

294,23 196 

375 157 

939,25 96 

1154,8 153 

No.  7006 157 

P.  PAR. 

No.      47,23ff 96 

47,27 100 

P.  HEID. 
No.        6... 


P.    LOND. 

No.    121 95 

442 95 

971,4 100 

P.  PETR. 

No.    11,25 97 

111,59 122 

University  of  Toronto 

Acme  Library  Card  Pocket 

Under  Pat.  "Ref.  Index,File"